This leasehold scam

[franki68]

forget about the houses,it is obvious why there should not be a reason for freeholds on houses ,but why are they necessary on flats ?
No other country has a system like this ,and I have yet to see any remotely valid explanation as to why flats should be leasehold.
Maintenance ,insurance etc etc usually dealt with by the management company.

In other words why should leasehold/freeholds not be abolished full stop ?

[franki68]

98elise said:

Are you sure you understand what they are?

What would you propose instead of a leasehold (or similar) for a flat? As a leaseholder you can own part of the freehold so it doesn't have to be a separate person/entity.


Edited to add, if your proposing to abolish both, what do you propose to replace them with? freehold basically means you've bought the land and the buildings on it, what would replace that?

Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 26th July 13:30

I understand what they are.
As far as I am aware all most properties in germany for example are freehold ,so how can they have freehold flats but we cannot ?

[franki68]

TTwiggy said:

We can. At least we can have flats with a share of the freehold.

yes good luck trying to do that ,do you know how hard it is ?

[franki68]

TTwiggy said:

Not really. But it clearly isn't impossible as my GF owns a flat (in that London) with a share of the freehold.

its not impossible in some cases ,but for probably 95% of flat leaseholders I would say it is .The qualifying criteria make it very tough.

[franki68]

I cant reply individually to all these posts but some people seem to mix up what the freeholder does and what the management company does.

[franki68]

TTwiggy said:

I'm still uncertain if you understand what a leasehold is and what a freehold is. And I've also yet to see you explain what the 'scam' is. Someone has to own the land that a property sits on. Houses are (usually) easy as the land comes with the house, but flats are often developed on land owned by someone else (be it a private company, individual, local council or some other entity) and as such they 'rent' the land they are built on.

I understand perfectly,I own both ,I have expressed it badly,my main issue is more with freehold companies and the way they behave ,and the way leases have become more weighted to favour the freeholders and allow them to exploit the leaseholders more.

I have flats abroad as well ,they are not leasehold and they run perfectly smoothly ,hence the questions.

Edited by franki68 on Wednesday 26th July 15:35

[franki68]

TTwiggy said:

Sorry - I'm still not with you. When I had a leasehold property (Thames water owned the land) I never had any issue with the lease. It was 999 years and while it was £150 per year (compared to the £10 per year a friend in the same borough paid) There was never a problem with any aspect of it and I never felt 'exploited'. Now, the management company and service charges were a completely different matter.

just google issues with freeholders ,

...the retired couple who wanted to put a conservatory on their house,the freeholder demanded £15000 to give them permission.

The owner of one of if not the biggest freeholding company in the uk going on record telling everyone how he charged the leaseholders at one site £300,000 for work that cost £150000.

Every bit of work or insurance etc they will take a kick back /commission on at the expense of the leaseholders.I personally saw insurance rates double in one year as a freeholder exercised its right to insure the building instead of the management company.

Just to clarify not all freeholders,I deal with freeholders like westminster council and they are fine ,but honestly I pity anyone who buys a flat where one of the big private companies owns the freehold.

One of them demands consent fees for subletting even though it has no right to ,on the basis that a lot of people will pay up without querying it.

Despite tier one tribunal rulings that certain fees cannot exceed certain amounts they ignore them and try it on constantly with less aware leaseholders.

Edited by franki68 on Wednesday 26th July 16:02

[franki68]

TTwiggy said:

Right. Fine. Sorry. It's just that there was no link(s) in your OP so I really didn't know what you were talking about.

I wasn't clear at all so it is my bad.