Difficult seller?

Marvel1

I would walk away based on the seller alone.

Refuses asking price then asks for £10K abive it - um you put the asking price down, if you wanted more then should have listed as such.

Sarah1Mitty2

Run away, plenty more flats.

gwynlas

You are obviously interested in this flat which comes with a substantial lease and share of freehold. Forget about the seller and leave it in the hands of your conveying solicitor. They should request a copy of the lease and management accounts and point out any anomolies. Your lender will expect their due diligence as well so theoretically unless there are massive unforeseen issues with the building you are safe. You could also have a survey completed for your own piece of mind and if there are issues request a reduction prior to exchange, Do not engage with the seller directly and leave it to the professionals.

Sarahspangles

What is your 'skin in the game' i.e. have you spent anything so far other than your time?  Your mortgage valuation could come back lower than asking price, or the solicitor may point out something about the lease, or the survey find something.  You could spend quite a lot to get to a position where you need to lower your offer and have the seller withdraw.

EssexHebridean

ThisIsWeird said:

EssexHebridean said:

It’s not quite as simple on the freehold lease extension as everyone just agreeing, but the share of the freehold/in the management co certainly makes life likely to be more straightforward. But to reiterate, there is no mortgage issue with a 105 years remaining lease - regardless if your mortgage is 15, 20, 25 years or even longer. You may have issues with remortgaging later (as in borrowing more against the property, not just changing to a new deal)  when a mortgage co might insist on an extension being done before they give further lending, but at the point you’re at now even that’s not likely to be a significant issue. 

Thanks, EHebridian. (Which Hebdridian?)

Would an indemnity policy be a suitable alternative, do you know?

Well eventually hopefully North Uist…but not for a few years yet, other than via as many visits each year as we can shoehorn in! 😁

And not really, on the indemnity policy thing. But that’s a good thing, because it means that there isn’t really a risk to indemnify against. Seriously -  105 years remaining lease is simply a non issue - it’s no different in real terms to one with 124 years on it. A lender who is happy to lend on leasehold at all will not be in the least phased by that duration. If it was 85 years remaining, there might be some twitching as it’s creeping closer to the point where an extension becomes problematic. Most likely even in that situation though the lender would simply make sure that the solicitor/conveyancer was making the client aware in writing about the requirement to extend inside the next few years. 

london21

Wit for the right property and seller. 

RAS

EssexHebridean said:

Well eventually hopefully North Uist…but not for a few years yet, other than via as many visits each year as we can shoehorn in! 😁

Off topic.

Ushnish bothy.... Although I know it's.not for everyone

Gavin83

Unless there’s more to this story I can’t really see what the seller did wrong. They had a price they wanted, you had a price you wanted to pay. You couldn’t originally agree. That doesn’t make them bad people, nor you.

My advice would be to not get so emotional about it and consider it a business transaction. If you like the house and can get it for the price you want then go for it. Don’t reject it because the seller didn’t accept your original price.

It’s different if you agree a price and then they start to mess you about. Negotiation isn’t messing you about though.

Also don’t believe anything the seller says, regardless of how genuine they seem. Always conduct the necessary checks.

EssexHebridean

RAS said:

EssexHebridean said:

Well eventually hopefully North Uist…but not for a few years yet, other than via as many visits each year as we can shoehorn in! 😁

Off topic.

Ushnish bothy.... Although I know it's.not for everyone

Had to look that one up - the hills there are a bit much for my knees sadly although we’ve done a good few of the smaller ones! 

Apologies for OT, OP! 

ThisIsWeird

user1977 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

EssexHebridean said:

It’s not quite as simple on the freehold lease extension as everyone just agreeing, but the share of the freehold/in the management co certainly makes life likely to be more straightforward. But to reiterate, there is no mortgage issue with a 105 years remaining lease - regardless if your mortgage is 15, 20, 25 years or even longer. You may have issues with remortgaging later (as in borrowing more against the property, not just changing to a new deal)  when a mortgage co might insist on an extension being done before they give further lending, but at the point you’re at now even that’s not likely to be a significant issue. 

Would an indemnity policy be a suitable alternative, do you know?

What risk would the indemnity policy be covering? The only issue the OP seems to have mentioned is the duration of the lease - that's a fairly clear fact (once somebody bothers actually reading the lease to check...), you can't insure against it ending in 105 years.

I was thinking about guarding against an exploitative Freeholder, having the OP over a barrel should they buy with 'only' 105 years. Or, in this share-of-the-FH situation, possibly against a majority of LHs voting against one newbie!

I know I know - that's why I'm asking