• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

Leasehold new build: the next mis-selling scandal

Recommended Posts

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-6207469/Fleeced-lease-Families-hit-soaring-ground-rent.html

Jo and Mark Darbyshire thought that their five-bedroom property near Bolton would be the perfect place for the kids to grow up in.

At £400,000, it was expensive for them, but it had a huge garden and countryside views and the couple were able to choose their own kitchen and bathroom.

They had no idea that, eight years later, they would face a bill for tens of thousands of pounds to buy their freehold and escape soaring ground rent. 

The Darbyshires say that when they bought their home, they were told by Taylor Wimpey that they would be able to buy the freehold at a later date for around £5,000.

They were never warned that their housebuilder might sell the land beneath their home to an investment company which could hike the price ten-fold.

And they are not alone. Money Mail can today reveal that thousands of households are caught in the same trap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She says: 'There are some wins for leaseholders. But these reforms are unlikely to make my freehold available for the £5,000 I was told it would be when I bought the house.

Why would you pay £400k for a house and not pay the extra £5k? If I was told it would be available for £5k then I would have bought it there and then; what's the difference going to be between a £400k mortgage and a £405k mortgage?

They should be sueing their solicitor if they didn't strongly advise them to either buy the freehold or enter into a binding agreement with the builder to have a fixed price option to buy it in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

She says: 'There are some wins for leaseholders. But these reforms are unlikely to make my freehold available for the £5,000 I was told it would be when I bought the house.

Why would you pay £400k for a house and not pay the extra £5k? If I was told it would be available for £5k then I would have bought it there and then; what's the difference going to be between a £400k mortgage and a £405k mortgage?

They should be sueing their solicitor if they didn't strongly advise them to either buy the freehold or enter into a binding agreement with the builder to have a fixed price option to buy it in the future.

Or perhaps sue themselves for stupidity 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

Or perhaps sue themselves for stupidity 

I was avoiding going down that route because often first time house buyers don't understand these things and rely upon their appointed experts to guide them through it.

If their solicitor said "Don't worry about it being leasehold; that's no problem everyone just buys the freehold later" or their surveyor said "Well it's got structural issues and subsidence but it's not a concern" then as a young home buyer you'd probably believe them and go ahead and buy.

That's who they should be sueing.

I have read in other stories on the issue that the homebuilders were wheeling out their tame solicitors at a discount rate primed to say just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I was avoiding going down that route because often first time house buyers don't understand these things and rely upon their appointed experts to guide them through it.

If their solicitor said "Don't worry about it being leasehold; that's no problem everyone just buys the freehold later" or their surveyor said "Well it's got structural issues and subsidence but it's not a concern" then as a young home buyer you'd probably believe them and go ahead and buy.

That's who they should be sueing.

I have read in other stories on the issue that the homebuilders were wheeling out their tame solicitors at a discount rate primed to say just that.

Well that's going to be very expensive for the professional liability providers for the tame solicitors - the consumer needs to be protected at all costs and other lawyers are going to go after them somewhat.

Equally I would be checking the ownership of the investment company. I suspect its ultimate owners will be connected to a Taylor Wimpey Pension Fund (usually it belongs to the directors)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I was avoiding going down that route because often first time house buyers don't understand these things and rely upon their appointed experts to guide them through it.

If their solicitor said "Don't worry about it being leasehold; that's no problem everyone just buys the freehold later" or their surveyor said "Well it's got structural issues and subsidence but it's not a concern" then as a young home buyer you'd probably believe them and go ahead and buy.

That's who they should be sueing.

I have read in other stories on the issue that the homebuilders were wheeling out their tame solicitors at a discount rate primed to say just that.

From the article 

Jo, 48, and Mark, 49,

also they were spending 400k.  Old enough and ugly enough to know better....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

From the article 

Jo, 48, and Mark, 49,

also they were spending 400k.  Old enough and ugly enough to know better....

That is though why you pay a solicitor.

When you bought your house and they did the title searches did you sit down with them and ask to be taken through them or were you reassured by your solicitor saying "We've done the searches and there is no problem"?

I was the latter but my relaxed attitude was shaped by the knowledge that in paying a solicitor and a surveyor I didn't need to worry about any problems that they didn't flag because if they were costly then they were paying the bill.

I saw their bill as partly a useful service and partly an insurance premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

That is though why you pay a solicitor.

When you bought your house and they did the title searches did you sit down with them and ask to be taken through them or were you reassured by your solicitor saying "We've done the searches and there is no problem"?

I was the latter but my relaxed attitude was shaped by the knowledge that in paying a solicitor and a surveyor I didn't need to worry about any problems that they didn't flag because if they were costly then they were paying the bill.

I saw their bill as partly a useful service and partly an insurance premium.

I guess it depends on whether you are paying a solicitor or a conveyancer.  Whether they are your solicitor or one recommended by the builder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

That is though why you pay a solicitor.

I was the latter but my relaxed attitude was shaped by the knowledge that in paying a solicitor and a surveyor I didn't need to worry about any problems that they didn't flag because if they were costly then they were paying the bill.

I saw their bill as partly a useful service and partly an insurance premium.

I had a similar issue when we bought our current house. The title requires us to become a member of a management company and to contribute to the maintenance of the common (they're not common at all, they are very high class as a matter of fact :)) areas of the development. It was shown quite clearly on the preamble to the contract, which I must confess I only skimmed through. Our solicitor didn't mention it at all and the first I knew was when we received service charge demands after a year or two later.

It wasn't a problem as it turned out although I was miffed when I first received the unexpected demands. The managing agent appointed by the developer wasn't doing a good job and when the AGM was held they were dismissed and I got myself appointed as the managing agent. I am now responsible for the upkeep of the common areas. They are generally kept in excellent condition. They look a bit shabby now because of the extremely hot weather conditions we had this year. They'll recover and look better next year.

This was the seventh house we've bought and lived in and this is the first time we had any experience of an obligation of this nature attached to a freehold. I was surprised that our solicitor didn't bother to bring it to our attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

That is though why you pay a solicitor.

When you bought your house and they did the title searches did you sit down with them and ask to be taken through them or were you reassured by your solicitor saying "We've done the searches and there is no problem"?

I was the latter but my relaxed attitude was shaped by the knowledge that in paying a solicitor and a surveyor I didn't need to worry about any problems that they didn't flag because if they were costly then they were paying the bill.

I saw their bill as partly a useful service and partly an insurance premium.

No, you pay a solicitor to advise you, not think for you...why do people give more thought to buying a mobile than they do to a house AND believe everything they are told?...if I am buying something and a point is important not only do I check the small print but I get it in writing as well.....but then perhaps I am old fashioned, as I still check my change in front of the person that served me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/09/2018 at 08:11, One percent said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-6207469/Fleeced-lease-Families-hit-soaring-ground-rent.html

Jo and Mark Darbyshire thought that their five-bedroom property near Bolton would be the perfect place for the kids to grow up in.

At £400,000, it was expensive for them, but it had a huge garden and countryside views and the couple were able to choose their own kitchen and bathroom. 

They had no idea that, eight years later, they would face a bill for tens of thousands of pounds to buy their freehold and escape soaring ground rent. 

The Darbyshires say that when they bought their home, they were told by Taylor Wimpey that they would be able to buy the freehold at a later date for around £5,000.

They were never warned that their housebuilder might sell the land beneath their home to an investment company which could hike the price ten-fold.

And they are not alone. Money Mail can today reveal that thousands of households are caught in the same trap. 

'Jo and Mark Darbyshire thought that their five-bedroom property near Bolton would be the perfect place for the kids to grow up in.

At £400,000, it was expensive for them, but it had a huge garden and countryside views and the couple were able to choose their own kitchen and bathroom.'

Forget leasehold. Ive highlighted the two main problems.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/09/2018 at 09:32, One percent said:

I guess it depends on whether you are paying a solicitor or a conveyancer.  Whether they are your solicitor or one recommended by the builder. 

They cna recommend all they like.

The soiclior works for who pays them.

If the builder pays them ....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Jo Derbyshire

General Manager at Openreach

Blackburn, United Kingdom

A tenacious and resilient executive with a demonstrable track record of transforming large underperforming operations, both within the UK & offshore. Consistently delivering excellence in customer service; network performance; supplier management; people and cost leadership. Expert in creating the environment required to build motivated, capable & committed teams to meet the strategic and changing needs of the business.'

But doesnt grasp what a leasehold is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, spygirl said:

'Jo Derbyshire

General Manager at Openreach

Blackburn, United Kingdom

A tenacious and resilient executive with a demonstrable track record of transforming large underperforming operations, both within the UK & offshore. Consistently delivering excellence in customer service; network performance; supplier management; people and cost leadership. Expert in creating the environment required to build motivated, capable & committed teams to meet the strategic and changing needs of the business.'

But doesnt grasp what a leasehold is.

 

But she works for openreach. In what way has she used her tenacious executive powers to transform them?  Do you think perhaps she works in the call centre?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first purchase was a leasehold flat in London - mid twenties. Pre internet days, so no way of finding out from independent sources opinions and experiences of leaseholds.

No one explained what a shit construct leaseholds are for the property owner.  Everyone - estate agent, lawyer, lender - said reassuring things, or nothing at all.  So I do have sympathy for the people involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/09/2018 at 08:57, Frank Hovis said:

She says: 'There are some wins for leaseholders. But these reforms are unlikely to make my freehold available for the £5,000 I was told it would be when I bought the house.

Why would you pay £400k for a house and not pay the extra £5k? If I was told it would be available for £5k then I would have bought it there and then; what's the difference going to be between a £400k mortgage and a £405k mortgage?

They should be sueing their solicitor if they didn't strongly advise them to either buy the freehold or enter into a binding agreement with the builder to have a fixed price option to buy it in the future.

When i bought my house it was leasehold,the whole estate had the chance to buy the freehold 2 years after they were built for £500,the freeholder sent them all a letter,only 9 out of 46 houses took up the offer.I worked out it would cost me £4800 to buy the freehold so the day before we completed i dropped it on the seller,i want £10k off,its leasehold.They accepted at £9k,obvious they knew and were just hoping to pass to some sucker.Interesting now i know around half of the estate is still leasehold and will of gone into marriage value kicking in now,so buying the freehold will be shooting up by thousands each year.No doubt they will by crying later,but not mention they were offered the freehold for £500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DurhamBorn said:

When i bought my house it was leasehold,the whole estate had the chance to buy the freehold 2 years after they were built for £500,the freeholder sent them all a letter,only 9 out of 46 houses took up the offer.I worked out it would cost me £4800 to buy the freehold so the day before we completed i dropped it on the seller,i want £10k off,its leasehold.They accepted at £9k,obvious they knew and were just hoping to pass to some sucker.Interesting now i know around half of the estate is still leasehold and will of gone into marriage value kicking in now,so buying the freehold will be shooting up by thousands each year.No doubt they will by crying later,but not mention they were offered the freehold for £500.

fking idiots,saying that tw. is to blame for much of this.but ive limited sympathy if they could have bought it for 500 notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.