Will banning new leasehold properties decimate the value of existing leasehold flats ?

Section62

ReadySteadyPop said:

Section62 said:

Bookworm105 said:

obviously if people can choose between leasehold and commonhold the property would need to be spectacular to justify being exposed to leasehold by choice.

so yes, prices will plummet.

If that does happen, it may only be until people realise the legislation has merely rearranged the deckchairs.  The common parts will still need to be maintained by someone, and if it isn't the bogeyman freeholder then it will be the other owners/occupiers of the block.  Whilst shared freeholds can work well, if the communal approach breaks down (as eddddy's example illustrates) then who will arbitrate and how will the (vulnerable) minority be protected? Answers on a postcard please.

Moreover, one of the lessons of Grenfell has been better understanding of the need for greater professionalism in building management - and that the people responsible for managing a building need to be held to account for their failings (i.e. jail time for serious wrongdoing).  Having been involved in building management and regulation from a LA perspective the only way you'd ever get me to be a director of a commonhold association is if all the important decisions were made on the basis of external professional advice, and as much liability (as allowed by law) was passed on to them.  It won't necessarily be cheaper that way...

It is an attractive proposition to get rid of greedy landlords... but replacing them with enthusiastic amateurs free to build their own cliques and empires won't necessarily improve the lot of people living in these buildings.

Hence presumptions about the effect on property values may ultimately prove to be very wrong.

Generally a property that involves hassle, expense or even perceived danger will be overlooked for a property that doesn`t raise these flags, I am on the side of values plummeting.

I think your generalising doesn't really work, otherwise (for example) daveyjp's relative would have heeded the warnings, and leasehold property wouldn't be a problem the government think they need to fix.

In my own experience people will happily flock to properties that come with hassle, expense and/or danger, just so long as it ticks the boxes they think are important such as affordability or the right postcode.  Personally I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole, but experience tells me people are all very different in what they see and what bothers them.

Hanging around with people on MSE too long may risk gaining the false impression that everyone is savvy and thinks about the right things when it comes to buying property.

eddddy

ReadySteadyPop said:

Generally a property that involves hassle, expense or even perceived danger will be overlooked for a property that doesn`t raise these flags, I am on the side of values plummeting.

I don't really understand your argument.

Are you saying that leasehold flats will involve hassle, expense and perceived danger - so their values will plummet.

But commonhold flats won't involve hassle, expense and perceived danger - so their values won't plummet.


If so, can you explain the type of hassle, expense and perceived danger that you are thinking of?


(Or are you expressing an opinion about flats in general - irrelevant of whether they are leasehold or commonhold?)