Pay 10% Of Sale Price Rip Off When You Sell Yor Home

PasturesNew

macaque wrote: »

People are smugly saying "always read the terms and conditions" but the people we are talking about don't have the luxury of good choice. At the bottom end of the market their choice is between accepting unfair terms and conditions or going without a home.

Park homes are purchased with a personal loan, not a mortgage.
At a price of £130,000 that hardly seems 'bottom of the pile' to me.

I certainly couldn't raise a personal loan of that much for such an item.

The loan has no security as it is a mobile home and one could simply hitch it up and leg it.

symikins

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

For crying out loud! Why can't adults read terms and conditions and agree to them or walk away.

Everybody wants to be a victim.

It gets boring.

Some people really shouldn't go out without an adult.

GG

it must be wonderful to be a perfect person ..
:A
by the way what charm school did you go to???

PasturesNew

symikins wrote: »

l just want to know why + what the 10% is for ?

The 10% is for the site owner, who privately owns the land with full planning permission. He is sitting on a valuable commodity and creating a park that people can live in.

As a business he can charge what he likes for his service. And that charge is even laid down in law as a maximum (protecting tenants).

As a side issue, the mobile home park I was living in 20 years ago has now been cleared and a whole bunch of really posh ones are being put on there with a new layout. I wonder what would have happened to me if I'd stayed there.

No, I will agree, buying a mobile home is not a great solution. It has benefits (detached, cheaper than a house, cheaper than renting a bedsit) but a lot of downfalls such as nosey/awkward site owners, too many rules/charges and the 10% at the end is annoying, but I rolled up the start/end cost and balanced that against the cost of renting.

My advice to a friend who was thinking of buying one is: don't.

On resale, the hardest part isn't forking out the 10%, it is finding somebody to buy the caravan from you as you need the site owner's permission AND they need to either have the money in cash or be able to raise a huge personal loan.

symikins

PasturesNew wrote: »

Park homes are purchased with a personal loan, not a mortgage.
At a price of £130,000 that hardly seems 'bottom of the pile' to me.

I certainly couldn't raise a personal loan of that much for such an item.

The loan has no security as it is a mobile home and one could simply hitch it up and leg it.

my first home was a single home bought for £15000 in the late 80,s [financed by my house sale after a divorce ] and like all other housing went up/down in price . i moved to a double park home for more space costing £65000 3 yrs ago, paid for outright by selling my single home ,after repairing + modernising my current home it is now worth £130000 so no you cannot get mortgages and as you say personal loans at that amount are out of most peoples reach [think of the monthly repayments ...aaagh !!]
£130000 is not bottom of the pile ....approx £70000 is.. this will buy you a single used home with a new one costing approx £85000 + .

hitching up and legging it as you say would be a bit like moving the bell tuit lighthouse ... they come in 2 pieces so a lot of dismantling is involve + brick skirting all around the home ,i dont think id get far in a hurry and im sure someone would notice !!! lol

symikins

PasturesNew wrote: »

The 10% is for the site owner, who privately owns the land with full planning permission. He is sitting on a valuable commodity and creating a park that people can live in.

As a business he can charge what he likes for his service. And that charge is even laid down in law as a maximum (protecting tenants).

As a side issue, the mobile home park I was living in 20 years ago has now been cleared and a whole bunch of really posh ones are being put on there with a new layout. I wonder what would have happened to me if I'd stayed there.

No, I will agree, buying a mobile home is not a great solution. It has benefits (detached, cheaper than a house, cheaper than renting a bedsit) but a lot of downfalls such as nosey/awkward site owners, too many rules/charges and the 10% at the end is annoying, but I rolled up the start/end cost and balanced that against the cost of renting.

My advice to a friend who was thinking of buying one is: don't.

On resale, the hardest part isn't forking out the 10%, it is finding somebody to buy the caravan from you as you need the site owner's permission AND they need to either have the money in cash or be able to raise a huge personal loan.

Homes on our park go like hotcakes and due to the prices they sell for now most of the people who buy them are downsizing from conventional homes aso paying cash and banking the rest + enjoy life

Gorgeous_George

symikins wrote: »

it must be wonderful to be a perfect person ..
:A
by the way what charm school did you go to???

Sorry, I guess I was a little blunt.

Unlike bank charges, this 10% is laid down in law.

I don't know what the business model of a park owner is but I guess there are significant overheads. The 10% may encourage people to stay longer and may form an important part of the running costs. Would you prefer that the ground rent was increased so that the 10% could be removed.

It's like demanding tax on petrol be reduced. That could be done but tax would have to go up somewhere else to keep UK plc ticking along.

We all pay for things that we consider unfair. By all means challenge any costs but do so BFEORE agreeing to the terms and conditions.



GG

macaque_2

It is clear that few on this thread agree that these charges are contemptible. The stench of 'I'm alright Jack' hangs thick in the air.

Many of the posters have endorsed the fees on the principle that the land owners should charge what they can get away with under the law. Doubtless they would be vehemently defending slavery providing it was legal (and they weren't slaves).

'Pastures new' observed that the park is a valuable commodity. Quite so, but this has nothing to do with risk taking, enterprise or hard work of the land owner. The value of the land is entirely linked to a fortuitous planning decision. The occupier of the park home by contrast does take risk by investing time and money. The comments about £130,000 and 'bottom of the pile' must qualify as the dumbest comment on this thread.

I trust that the people who have defended these iniquitous charges will remain forever silent on such subjects as estate agent fees, stamp duty, council tax, conveyancing charges, inheritance tax, ground rent or anything else of this ilk.

Curious_Moose

If the site owner gets 10% on the sale of every house (and not just on any profit on the buy/sell prices) it does seem a very nice earner. Presumably, it must be in interest if these houses are bought/sold regularly. The last thing he'd want would be stable owners who stayed there for years.

It does seem odd that such a penalty can apply, as it actively encourages the site owner to "persuade" owners to sell their properties once bought.

Running_Horse

macaque wrote: »

People are smugly saying "always read the terms and conditions" but the people we are talking about don't have the luxury of good choice. At the bottom end of the market their choice is between accepting unfair terms and conditions or going without a home.

Rubbish. Everyone has choice. It is patronising to suggest poorer people should not be expected to understand terms and conditions on a contract. Most poor people are not forced into park homes.

macaque wrote: »

I trust that the people who have defended these iniquitous charges will remain forever silent on such subjects as estate agent fees, stamp duty, council tax, conveyancing charges, inheritance tax, ground rent or anything else of this ilk.

I have no problem with any of these taxes and professional fees. We moved recently and spent thousands on such things. Nobody works for free, and we all use government services paid for by taxation.

symikins

Curious_Moose wrote: »

If the site owner gets 10% on the sale of every house (and not just on any profit on the buy/sell prices) it does seem a very nice earner. Presumably, it must be in interest if these houses are bought/sold regularly. The last thing he'd want would be stable owners who stayed there for years.

It does seem odd that such a penalty can apply, as it actively encourages the site owner to "persuade" owners to sell their properties once bought.

historically, park homes are usually for the retired eg 65+ who will usually made the move as their final one in their lifetime . so you can imagine the turn around the park has with this elderly community when they have to go into a home or sadly die . This used to be nearly the only reason for the home to go up for sale ..Happily people now retire earlier and live longer and move around more but hes still doing ok out of it

l think youll find that a retirement park [ currently with an over 50 only age restriction] is more benificial to the park owner for the above reasons , and theres not many " family parks" ie with no age restriction around