As I looked out on the world from my modest pile this morning, I suddenly felt the comforting weight of the land beneath me, the little piece of land I had saved for years to call mine... then remembered it’s leasehold
By - pingusbeak
> no-one actually owns land in this country
*Their Royal Highnesses have entered the chat*
I live in Sheffield and it was so hard to find a house that was freehold. So many leaseholds!
Big up sheff
I bought mine in Sheff. Was crazily easy. Think leasehold is so normalised here that people don't even try
Did you then notice the landlord across the way who owns 80 properties and wonder why its such a congested unfair market?
Yeah me too..
Hi it's me, one of his tenants, paying 40% of my wage into his pocket for "affordable housing." 🙃
"how about if I pay 30% of my wage as a mortgage instead?"
"no, that's not affordable"
“We need to make sure that you can still afford your payments if we increase interest rates.”
“Then don’t increase the fucking interest rates”
But they don't have a choice. If the BoE increases interest rates due to high inflation and if you're on a variable interest mortgage. Then they put rates up.
Pretty sure they do have a choice. The point is they're only going to make the choice that benefits their stockholders.
As it is you'd have to be mad not to fix. Even if the interest rate goes down, you're no worse off than you were before (and SVR rates are always disgusting), and if the interest rate goes up, you're no worse off than you were before (until the fix ends).
Unfortunately scraping together the tens of thousands needed for a deposit isn’t exactly a walk in the park, and if you aren’t buying with someone else the mortgage amounts you can get are atrocious.
I have saved up for deposit but apparently my salray is not enough to be approved for a mortgage eventhough i have perfect credit score , no debt ,long term job but still a high risk for Mortgage fuck my life.
Wanna know why? In the UK as a result of the 2008 crisis one of the affordability rules banks and building societies will run against you is to check if you could still pay for your mortgage if it magically tripled overnight. As in you need to be able to repay monthly triple what you're actually going to be paying in order for them to offer you a loan.
There's loads of other funky stuff too but I don't remember most of it.
Source: I'm a software developer who wrote software used by banks for originating and processing mortgages and savings accounts.
That's so fucked, I'm looking to buy my first place so I'm quite young, but I'm being paid great for my age so I figured I'd be able to get a decent mortgage, all of the calculators and shit I've tried have barely put my amount to borrow above 100k even with a 10% deposit. I get that for a first home I should be aiming low but god damn with the housing prices nowadays basically all I can afford is a half demolished crackhouse.
One man's "half demolished crackhouse", is another man's "established leisure facility with strong retail and residential potential given some minor renovation".
'No onward chain, excellent opportunity for a first time buyer or investment, £150,000 1 bedroom 1st floor 15m\^2 property 25% ownership in need to minor renovation EPC rating G'
Oh trust me, my work made me jaded. Also I'm sorry but the advice "just get on the property ladder first no matter what" is terrible.
Getting on property market for the sake of it is bad advice and boomer advice. Most people stay in the first house they end up buying. Equally don't buy a place and get a mortgage of you know you'll be in the place for less than 4ish years. The early repayment fees etc will eat away literally anything you paid off and you could end up owing money instead.
Btw I'm 26 and would say I'm paid well for my age so understand your feelings.
"That'll be catastrophic to my portfolio!"
Sincerely, a Londoner
No, he's a WEALTH CREATOR who is necessary in the market to PROVIDE HOUSING.
Do they build the houses?
Not exactly, no.....
Do they increase the supply?
Funnily enough... *Nervous sweating*
Do they... Do they at least improve the quality of the housing empire they hold?
Can you hear me laughing through my single glazed windows in my rented property?
Had that when I rented. Windows were so bad that water used to run down it in rivulets. Mould on the walls. Got our letting agency in to look at it. Letter 3 days later - "It is your responsibility to ensure your windows are clean at all times."
Absolute parasitic scum.
Don't forget that cracked secondary glazing in the kitchen!
* Continues to pay a rich man 50% of my wage a month*
To the collective farm comrade!
When you have so many houses you don’t call them houses, it’s just your _portfolio_. The swankiest way to say you’re a homeowner.
I bumped into the guy who owns the flat next to mine yesterday, he owns about six flats in total I think? Anyway his epic advice for me that I will surely be able to follow with ease was "Never sell a property".
Thanks mate. When I wanna move from this one I'll just add it to the portfolio and grab another. What's another mortgage eh?
Ask daddy to finance the next property in your "portfolio".
How can I never sell a property when I can never buy one to begin with?
The way in which he owns six is because he uses the rental income of each to pay the mortgages on the other ones. If the apartments increase in value then he’s potentially making long term money. If there’s a shortage of that of accommodation he can charge a premium rent to make more income ver his expenditure.
It’s not rocket science
he's just mortgage stacking based on existing property holdings. Once you've got one or two properties then start building up the portfolio and it will become self sustaining as you grow the portfolio. Many landlords do this. Nothing stopping you if you're prepared to take a risk.
Money. Money money money. I don't have a spare 20 grand to put on a mortgage, let alone twice that for two mortgages.
Landlords are scum
*All* you need is one or two properties. Simple.
*why can't the poor people understand this*
What they generally do is remortgage the first property to get enough cash together to finance the deposit on the second, so in reality they're only out of pocket once. As long as none of the mortgages miss a payment they're on easy street.
The only time they lose is if a property sits empty.
You'd be surprised how many lever themselves up and get in the absolute shite when there are voids or when their interest rates rise.
They also don't allow for repairs or anything quite as random as tax.
Also dependent on the area, you can get "cheap" houses but the rent in these areas is potentially only going to be near to housing benefit levels which really doesn't give the yield that programmes like Homes Under the Hammer suggest.
form a limited company and borrow against your business - buy your properties through the company and if it all goes to shite walk away scot free. Landlords aren't scum - they're just better at business than you.
Borrow against a business with no assets? Without a personal guarantee?
Despite being a landlord myself, watching how some people landlord and constantly finance for more debt on 75-80% morgages to continue buying up more property is pretty scummy.
Not being a leech stops alot of people from becoming landlords actually.
Communism is the solution to this ☭
Mines lease hold. Lived initially 6 years and just got all my land rent fees in one. No cover letter just the bills. Only a tenner but still had to Google the company to check and still need to check my paperwork to see who collects the bill as I feel like it's the co-op who own the land.
I get my ground rent (£20) invoices written by hand from a used car company in Northamptonshire (and I live in the North West).
No idea how that happened.
I live in a 1920s terraced house that's leasehold, though has hundreds of years left on it.
Get a letter each year asking for 'ground rent' of £1.35 with payment by cheque the only way to pay. Have confirmed it's legit, and paid once when it got to around £20 but have ignored it for the last 10 years or so.
Did consider buying the freehold but unlikely to be worth it.
buy it. It is worth it.
Yes buy it.
I’m guessing resale value and ease of resale
Makes sense. I am a dirty foreigner and the concept of leasehold is as alien to me as I am to you probably
Ah, the venerable dirty foreigner. I know your sort. I am positively surrounded by them, as I live in Canada! Barely a Brit around. 😉
But I am with you on the leasehold. I find it ridiculous and as I have bought my house in Canada, I believe I own it.
Buy it. We bought ours when the ground rent was £1.50/year. A few years later we moved house around the same time as a company bought out the leaseholds and whacked the ground rents up. Our old neighbours, who thought we were being silly buying the leasehold at the time, really wish they’d paid £100 too now.
I'd always assumed it would be thousands to do this, if it is hundreds then yes, I definitely should look into it
£1.35 a year but £150 admin fee when you request permission for something, or £50 admin fee for a copy of some paperwork required to sell the property etc. I lived in a leasehold house with peppercorn rent but once the lease was bought by a random company suddenly lots of admin fees.
>Did consider buying the freehold but unlikely to be worth it.
Buy it. Leasehold is the new grift, the spivs of the world have worked out that once you have the freehold, you can milk the leaseholder for plenty in return for no work.
Leaseholds have been around since the 11th century. There aren't leaseholds in Scotland though if you fancy it
Yes.. it didn't used to be much of a problem, but I've been seeing more stories about leaseholders being ripped off recently.
You only need to worry about the next 80 then it’s not your problem
Unless you want to sell at some point, or do something with the building.
Everything in life is temporary.
My love for cake is eternal
All hail your love for cake!
The cake... It is a lie
Propaganda, you probably like biscuits
I am partial to a blue ribband or a mint club on occasion.
I love the cake!
But if you bought one of the original 999 lease properties there's got to be a fair chunk of it still so nearly as good as freehold
Perhaps, but the freeholder can still take the lease *off* you, because they're ultimately giving you permission to use their freehold.
It's unlikely, but still a proper shitty scenario to have as a possibility.
You'd never have that in a freehold scenario
Not likely. I used to work for the Land Registry and this type of leasehold is extremely common and short of demolishing the place you treat it as if it was freehold. Also a typical rent was a peppercorn if demanded. Newer leases are typically for 125 years or maybe 99 so for those you need to make sure you've got loads of years left. If not then you need a new lease.
Newer leases are really that short? In 30 years it'll be impossible to sell those places.
Not normally a problem. You ask for a new lease as a precondition of buying the place.
Presumably you need to ask permission from the freeholder to make any kind of structural alterations etc, though?
No - because they’re long leaseholds of 999 years, they are basically as good as a freehold; the conditions are very very limited. The majority of the City of London is held on this type of leasehold.
Newer ones (like a 250 year leasehold flat) will have conditions like the ones you mentioned, but the older ones don’t.
You're still subject whether freehold or leasehold to planning rules and consents. Otherwise in practice no difference
Yes correct - I thought we were taking about restrictions based in the lease rather than generally, but you are correct.
You can only forfeit a lease when there is money due.
In a freehold if you owe someone money they can serve a statutory demand and apply for your bankruptcy forcing you to sell the Property (if you don't pay up).
So it's all the same in the end.
Hi, property lawyer here, this is incorrect.
'Deeds' are generally no longer used; ownership of land is generally derived from being the registered proprietor on the Land Registry for that registered title. There are a few un-registered titles out there, but the majority (About 80% if I recall) is registered.
Ownership of land *does* include the land itself. A popular maxim in regards to this concept is, “Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos” which basically translates to: “whoever owns the soil, holds title all the way up to the heavens and down to the depths of hell“. There are limitations to this of course, for example the Civil Aviation Act 1982 limits airspace ownership above your property to about 500-1,000.
There are also no general rules on maintenance of land; you can let it fall into disrepair if you like. But if it causes damage or becomes a nuisance to neighbouring properties then yes you may be forced to maintain it.
Re your lower comments; trespass to land is a civil tort. You do not need to pose a danger for someone to instruct you to leave or for it to be trespassing. Occupying or being present on a property (Trespassing) without consent, permission or some form of right of way easement will trigger potential liability. Trespassing in a residential property (Normally inside a dwelling) is also potentially a criminal matter as well as civil.
Freedom to roam is restricted only to access land which generally does not include residential land, gardens, golf courses etc.
Slight edit: I understand what OP was referring to, technically and academically you would only own an *interest* in the land (Freehold/fee simple absolute) which take their root/granted from the Crown, but then you go down the rabbit hole of what ownership really means. The interest generally speaking is sufficient to say you 'own' the land from a practical point of view.
Yes, I am aware of how it is now working in reality and thank you for recognising the technicality and academic stance.
Wasn't aware 20% of land is un-claimed, you know where these are? Could do with some land to call home.
We agree on trespass, maybe I didn't make it clear. All the deed owner or land registrar has to do is ask for them to leave, and for it be considered trespass.
As for the land register, we both know if two individual claimed ownership over the land the deed holder has much more weight than the registration. It's like owning your car with a receipt compared to having it on lease with it being registered for you to use.
it's not "unclaimed", its unregistered with the Land Registry. That doesnt mean you can't still prove ownership with documentation (usually deeds)
Sorry I though you was saying we didn't know who had the deeds. Dam there goes my free land.
So squatting is def out
Seriously, this is all excellent information. Thank you
So who actually owns the land? Or is land itself un-ownable and you actually only own the right to live/build etc on it?
The sovereign citizens own it, to say we all do. Represented in the Crown. So, yes in a way it is un-ownable as we all already own it, in part. And yes you only own the deed, the deeds specific can and do change. However generally it says you can live on the land in return of maintaining it (something we have failed to do, we destroyed this land with paving over it so council could own the roads, and much worse). And in many cases you'll have permission to build/have built on it, with materials you own.
This is how/why we have freedom to roam, I can freely enter the land you have deeds to. However if my present is causing you harm (in any manner) as deed owner and person responsible for the land you can ask me to leave the land. If I fail to do so, depending on the level of harm it can be criminal or just civil issue. (criminal damage, to the land/property/human or agitated trespass)
>citizens own it, to say we all do.
Sounds like commie talk to me
I thought we don't have freedom to roam in England though, trespass is criminal thing isn't it, not civil? I thought that's why wild camping isn't allowed in England? Scotland maybe different.
Trespass is only a civil tort in english law, not a crime.
We do have it and it depends and its agitate trespass, so if the deed owner put up sing or information saying not to camp (for example) or ask you to leave and stop camping. It can be considered criminal if the is an injured party. So has the camping coursed harm to a fellow human? To the land? To any property) If yes, criminal. If no, civil.
As for the freedom to roam, with private paving (the person own the material) can deny you access unless you require to use that path to access your property. So in many ways we have lost that, with roads. However for as long its earth underfoot you can roam on it freely.
I googled, that's not correct. You can only roam freely on "access land", which does not include people's gardens. You also cannot camp on "access land" unless the landowner permits it.
There's also a trend of landowners quietly removing signs for public access ways and allowing them to overgrow, as well as having maps remove them, all to obfuscate them.
There's a great Tom Scott video about an old Roman road that's a public access way, but it doesn't appear on maps because a landowner didn't want ramblers on "his" land.
Scotland has freedom to roam laws that allow you access to the countryside, but there are still rules to follow especially in regards to farms and such:
The main places where access rights are not exercisable are:
· Houses and other residences, and sufficient space around them to give residents reasonable privacy and lack of disturbance this will often be the garden area.
· Other buildings, works and structures, and the areas around them (curtilages).
· Land where crops are growing. Grass is not treated as a crop, except hay and silage in the late stages of growth. You can exercise access rights on field margins.
· Land next to and used by a school.
· Places, such as visitor attractions, which charge for entry.
· Land on which building or engineering works are being carried out, or which is being used for mineral working or quarrying.
· Land developed and in use for a particular recreational purpose, where the exercise of access rights would interfere with this use.
· Land set out for a particular recreational purpose or as a sports or playing field, when it is being used for that purpose and exercise of the rights would interfere with the use. But rights never apply to specially prepared sports surfaces golf greens, tennis courts or bowling greens.
I would say the government, since they guarantee your rights to use your land, but could also take it away if they wanted.
That's the beauty of the Crown, they can't take it away, unless the severing revolt ageist it, and then that us deciding to take them away. That's the true land protection we get.
The deeds to the land retunes to the Crown.
Government don't guarantee our rights, as you said they can take them away as they wish. That's not a guarantee.
I'm sure you can buy the mineral rights too.
You can buy the freehold of it off of the management company. That's what we did, and we own the flat outright now. No more paying to get our lease extended
I live in Sheffield. I've owned 2 houses so far. I always buy freehold.
Freehold is definitely better than leasehold but you still don't own it.
See under "Land".
For all intents and purposes though,freehold is ownership. It's as close as anyone other than "The Crown" ever gets.
> Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) who the absolute owner of land is in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) Wales, (e) Cornwall and (f) the Isles of Scilly; 
> (2) who has responsibility for land in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) Wales, (e) Cornwall and (f) the Isles of Scilly under circumstances in which deeds to land have been lost. 
> Bridget Prentice: : The Crown is the ultimate owner of all land in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly): all other owners hold an estate in land. Although there is some land that the Crown has never granted away, most land is held of the Crown as freehold or leasehold. If there is no other owner, land will belong to the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.
> The loss of title deeds does not alter the ownership of land or responsibility for it in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly). Title deeds are evidence of ownership of unregistered land. If the deeds have been lost, other evidence could be used to prove ownership. Title to registered land is derived from the register of title maintained under the Land Registration Act 2002.
> Responsibility for land law and succession law in Scotland and Northern Ireland is devolved. Questions about land law in these jurisdictions should be addressed to the Scottish Executive and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland respectively.
"**If there is no other owner**, land will belong to the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall."
That’s actually exactly what freehold means. The difference between freehold and leasehold is that you, usually, *do* own the land the property sits on if it’s freehold.
You can own the earth and still, all you’ll own is earth until...
You can paint with all the colours of the wind.
Completely incorrect, the estate reverts to the crown - so if you die intestate, yes not yours.
As a freeholder you own the land down to the core of the earth and all the way into the sky.
Leasehold is a better system than the Scots have, as under English law there are protections for the tenure, and ways to claim the freehold if the leasehold system is being abused. It’s also under high scrutiny at present and soon to be subject to reform.
Your point is incorrect and uneducated.
>As a freeholder you own the land down to the core of the earth and all the way into the sky.
Nope. Freeholders own down to the substrata and up to the point of reasonable use.
>Leasehold is a better system than the Scots have
I'm a scot, and leaseholding makes zero sense to me. Can you explain why it's better than our system? Genuinely interested to know what makes it good/useful etc. I'll be honest, I'm not by any stretch an expert on Scottish property rules!
I think that person is just a confidently incorrect knobber.
They really aren't incorrect as you stated at the bringing when you die it goes back to the Crown. As in the deed and land will go back to the crown as your person(s) representative is no longer living. Under a freehold you do own the deed for the land down to the core up to the sky. But not the land, just the deed. A leasehold is the same thing accept your renting the rights to the deed over buying them.
I'm aware Scotland have slightly different regulations and laws on this subject. However from an English point, this information is correct.
By that explanation no-one would be able to ever inherit land. If it all went back to the Crown upon death.
But that's why we have last wills and testimonies, you are able to pass the ownership of the deed through a will.
Exactly… so it doesn’t revert to the crown upon death. It can change hands any number of ways upon someone’s death, contrary to what you said
It would revert to the Crown without a will or being able to find the successor. So to say reverts back to Crown unless stated otherwise. I should have made that clearer first time round.
Well of course, otherwise over the past however many hundred years there would by now be countless pieces of land everywhere, of which the owner had passed away with no will or descendants. It would be completely impractical for that land to just never be able to be used again. This is true of all developed countries
‘Free man of the land’ verbal gymnastics and quasi-legal speak is quite something. I have a colleague who’s the same, most of his points flip-flop around under the gentlest of probing
Well, what happens to the deeds of the land if it does go back to the Crown is; they sell it or lease it again. This does happen all the time, we even have person(s) employed to do this. As the Crown now gives it to government. As they have taken a step back from the daily running of the country.
All I've done is explain how 'land ownership' works. If that come across as a Free-man, then so be it. Rather be free than not.
I fully understand how land ownership works, hence me calling out the errors in your first comment.
I’m going to leave it there but take this as my passing sentiment after skimming your comment/post history. I’ve worked all over the world, in democracies and not. So I’ve seen how other people live and the yoke’s they are forced to live under. Whatever ‘oppressive’ regime you believe it is which you are suffering under as a free-man/sovereign citizen, or whatever silliness some internet snake oil fella’s come up with…. This ain’t it
I think this is one of those "correct in theory, under certain circumstances, but otherwise irrelevant" situations.
Yes, if property cannot be passed to an inheritor upon the death of the owner, it will default somewhere and the crown / country seems as good a place as anyone. Remember, not writing a will doesn't mean this is what will happen - if you have living relatives, they'd ultimately end up with it first - it's just that a will makes this clear and explicit, as well as allowing you to pass your property to someone who would not normally be considered by the default process (e.g. your local cat refuge).
But the reality is that, to all intents and purposes, a freehold is owned by the property owner and they can use it and dispose of it as they see fit and it's really not worth getting overly bogged down in legalese here. If it bothers you that much, make sure you've got a decent (and up to date) will!
Also, unjustified leaseholds (e.g. on new build estates) should be absolutely illegal. Fuck that shit.
I mean if its the law, I fail to understand how the law can be correct in theory but not in practice.
I wish I owned deeds to land to leave in a will.
Agreed leaseholds should be made illegal, only issue with that you will then have government trying to go over the heads of severings as leaseholds are protected by law.
Mmm yes, shallow *and* pedantic.
I’m looking at buying a leasehold flat (130 years) currently in a freehold house. Is it really so bad? Won’t deny it makes me twitchy but in other ways I can kind’ve see the appeal.
Flats are almost always leasehold, it's unavoidable as land ownership is from "stone to sky".
Yeah it makes sense that flats are leasehold (wouldn’t consider a leasehold house).
I’m just not sure how I feel about paying a mortgage on something I don’t technically own. But it’s a really nice flat.
I got quite a good way through buying a house before I found out it was leasehold. The survey brought it up. Nothing as part of the listing said so, the estate agent didn't say a word, nor the vendor. I remember poring over the listing after finding out and the "Tenure" field was conveniently missing.
I terminated progression straight away. The seller was furious with me. Fuck them - they should say stuff like this as its an abnormality. I was furious with everyone party to that sale.
Turns out the house belonged to a much larger house next door, and this house was basically an annex building - though it had its own totally fenced off garden, drive etc.
Anyway - fuck that so much. Leasehold needs banning.
They managed to sell it in the end, from what I can tell - though for a *huge* chunk lower than the asking price.
I can’t see the need for a leasehold house at all but I do see how they might be a necessary evil for flats. I know I can’t trust the estate agent or seller to tell me things unless I ask so I’m trying to make sure I know all the right questions.
Glad you dodged the bullet!
Quite frankly there is no reason for flats to be leasehold either in the modern world. Share of freehold or commonhold are far more civilised ways of owning appartments that for some reason are terribly hard to find in England...
>They managed to sell it in the end, from what I can tell - though for a huge chunk lower than the asking price.
Which is exactly why they carefully didn't mention it. They knew what they were doing.
You did the right thing, I wish I’d done the same! I certainly considered it. Very similar situation to what you describe. Anyway I managed to sell my leasehold house last week after a torturous process. So relieved to be out of that place, now have freehold, would never buy leasehold (house) again.
ugh, horrible little conniving shits, no other way to say it lol
This kind of leasehold is at least understandable - instead of splitting the freehold of the single plot of land, they established a lease on part of it and sold it off. The real scam is new-build leasehold houses, which have absolutely no reason to be leaseholds other than the developers wanting to extract more money from the owners.
I would never buy another flat, I was so pleased when I sold mine and and bought a house. Leaseholds are a pain, high service charges, no control over enormous bills for works. If you are in a freehold now, I would stay put or move to another freehold.
Will definitely want to see the small print about unexpected/unpredictable costs.
Unfortunately I can’t afford a freehold that isn’t a terrace (or down the scary end of town) so I need to consider my options.
Just consider the lease itself as the valuable commodity that your mortgage is secured on, then, rather than the property. It makes very little difference. You own the lease and the lease is valued at however much you paid to buy it. It's no different from mortgaging any other valuable security.
On a leasehold of 130 years, unless you happen to still be living there in fifty years (or will it to your children / whoever), you won't have to deal with anything more than perhaps some annoying leasehold covenants.
That’s a really useful way of looking at it. Thanks
I'd never buy a flat freehold either, I wouldn't want to not own either my floor or ceiling.
I know where you’re coming from but both the roof and windows of my current house have cost me more than I like to think about and I kinda like the idea of not being responsible for either.
You still have to pay for those regardless of the tenure.
See cladding debacle.
Likely to be factored in to the maintenance costs by all accounts but I know the fine print would need scrutinising.
Cladding is definitely on my list but my step dad works in fire safety so I will be passing that one over to him.
It depends on the property but I have lived in a leasehold flat (maisonette) and all repairs, doors, windows etc were my responsibility.
Zero maintenance charges but also zero maintenance oversight. Freeholder did nothing apart from charge us £10 ground rent a year.
The one I’m looking at is a four storey block with a management company and related fees. Will be scrutinising the paperwork before I make any offers. I’m starting to wish it didn’t have a lift!
You'll pay for everything in the end. The freeholder passes all costs onto the leaseholders, so even if it is technically their responsibility to pay, you're on the hook for it nonetheless - whether it's an upfront payment or an increase in service charges.
Unless you're in Scotland where most properties (including flats) aren't anything-hold. Everything is essentially freehold, for all intents and purposes.
Another thing Scotland gets right with property law in comparison to archaic England.
A friend of mine lives in a tenement in Edinburgh. He lives on the top floor and wanted to build a room in the roof space. He researched what rights he had to do so.
Turns out the top floor owner owns the rights to everything above his ceiling including the air above it and the ground floor owns the ground rights to the centre of the earth.
You wanna be mindful though, that centre-of-the-earth segment is probably conical, not cylindrical, at that scale. So really, you own a lot less of the core of the earth than you might think.
Unfortunately, the air-above-the-ceiling deal is kinda crappy too; at that scale, it's more cylindrical than conical, so you don't even get to reap that benefit.
My sister owned a flat in Scotland and got stung for roof repairs. It might not be leasehold in name but it basically is
Not really. A great many ground floor flats in England are freehold; it’s a lot more common than you think on smaller blocks of flats.
It really depends on the terms of the lease and the building itself. Don't just look at current service charges and ground rent, but also how they might change over time. The length is OK.
Is the rent flat or does it ratchet up over time (though I've seen a freehold ask for a tithe of 4 shillings a year)? Are there facilities to maintain? Does the management company hold a fund for major works, or will there be massive bills?
IMO high rises are risky because any exterior works will be expensive, and medium rises are not worth it because of lift maintenance costs aren't shared between enough flats. Very happy in 3 story development with no lift to service and the only facilities to maintain being an easily mowed garden, though.
You make a very valid/helpful point about the number of people sharing the cost of a lift, I hadn’t considered that.
Maintenance/ground rent is currently £70 a month but I’ve not yet asked the question about how it will go up but it is on my list.
No. Share of freehold is better but it’s not worth choosing one flat or over another, unless the lease is short.
Service charge generally only applies to blocks of flats. If you live in a maisonette or house conversion you will just sort repairs and maintenance between yourselves.
I will probably be moving to another flat after this one because I can’t afford the extra £150k for the equivalent sized house. Nothing in a block though.
There is a service charge but I can live with it. I’d rather that than anymore ‘sorting between yourselves’ tbh.
The ball ache I had when my neighbour accidentally knocked down a chunk of our shared boundary wall was ridiculous.
Don't do it, it's a can of worms
honestly, after lots of searching I can't see myself buying a flat
if the area you like only really has flats I guess there's no choice, but otherwise I can't see it for me
And yeah, it's a choice heavily tied to the leasehold and maintenance stuff
Tbh I didn’t fancy a flat either. But currently living in a terraced house and could only afford a nicer terraced house.
What I really want is a bit more privacy and peace. Last night I could hear my left side neighbours smoke alarm, the house bk2bk were having bbq, I could hear someone brushing there teeth and my right side neighbours kids were hanging out of there upstairs window wanting to talk to me.
Seen this very affordable fourth floor flat with a roof terrace that’s not overlooked at all.....
I don't see how having a flat will stop you having neighbours, but yes a top floor flat with no nearby flats will reduce your direct neighbours to 1, the ones below you.
I don’t mind them being there if I can’t see or hear them :D.
I was thinking about the ones below and am wondering how thick the floors will be..... but it’s a fairly new/substantial building. Would like to test the soundproofing but not sure how.
They're often a lot cheaper than houses for the same square footage (although there are of course good reasons for that).
I bought a two bed flat 10 years ago and don't regret it, my mortgage payments are less than I was paying on rent and if I'd waited until I could afford a house I might still be waiting.
yes, to be fair when you compare it to renting a flat it's going to be superior. But since a room in a house is so much cheaper than renting a flat I'd rather save for a deposit on a house.
Used to run leaseholds for a local council.
It's definitely more complicated and sometimes a total ballache compared to a freehold.
You have your mortgage, ground rent, then a maintenance levy on top of you're lucky.
The maintenance levy is to build up money to pay for any work to the building or grounds, and in theory prevent you being hit with a huge bill.
We took over a group of properties from a rogue management company who didn't do their work to the property, but also didn't collect maintenance levies.
The end result was each tenant being given a bill for 15k which had to be paid as the roof was stuffed, 2 balconies were hanging on solely by the rebar and the lift was a deathtrap.
People have also been slammed with huge bills for fire safety work following Grenfell too.
If you have a good managing company it shouldn't be a problem.
As another guy has said, look at all the facilities, they will all affect how much you're going to be likely to pay. Lifts need servicing and repair which is expensive as fuck.
Flat roofs don't last as long as peaked, balconies need maintaining, etc.
Also, leaseholders are notoriously tight fisted and stubborn. There will always be one or two in the block who won't agree to anything and hold up getting things done.
Commonly to save money some residents will decline a service charge for a communal cleaner or grounds maintenance or something else that needs doing like the gutters, with the intention that residents do it themselves.
Then nobody ever does any of it and it becomes a massive point of contention.
Thanks that’s really helpful. I haven’t got the name of the management company yet. Do you happen to know of anywhere in particular I should look them up? Planning on sticking there name in a search engine and digging through what comes up.
Go on the Land Registry website and look up the address. Pay about £6 and you'll see the details for the property. This should then tell you the current occupant and the freeholder.
Edit to add link: https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/eservices/FindAProperty/view/QDSearch.do
Very useful to know. Thanks
Give the block a Google. Lots of management companies like to shout about their portfolios.
Other option Is just to be curious and ask one of the people in the block. They'll be more than glad to have a moan, especially if they don't like them (very rarely do people like the management).
I haven't tried it so not sure if it will be good but you can also try land registry.
Small amount of money will tell you lots of info, unsure if that includes the current managing co.
Me and my girlfriend owned a flat, and we wouldn’t do it again. The ground rent and service charge kept going up and up as the building got worse and worse. We wanted to live in the city so we didn’t have much choice, but it would be last resort for me to buy a flat now.
Thanks for commenting. Will definitely need to scrutinise the small print.
I’m still on the Facebook page for the building and a lot of the residents are discussing legal action because of the insane ‘one off’ charges that keep on happening, with very little to show. There is also a big issue with air bnbs that put up the building’s insurance, that while against the terms of the lease, the management company refuses to acknowledge it’s a problem. I’m sure there are plenty of well managed buildings, but I haven’t heard of many.
Sounds like it’s going to come down to the terms of the lease and the caliber of the management company. Lots to think about. Thanks
Yeah definitely, at least you are going in eyes open.
Good luck mate
Scotland did away with this nonsense . Time for the rest to follow ..
Mine's 125 years and has flammable walls.
Anusol is your friend.
It's very simple to end housing shortages. Let people build sympathetically in green belts and abolish council planning authorities.
Fuck, I'd happily live in a two-room hut with a bed, a desk, and running water on even days on the calendar, but instead I'm going to be renting until I die or win the lottery.
You don't own your property either. Try not paying council tax.
Council tax is not related to owning your house
Council tax is a tax on domestic property. Stop paying your council tax and will eventually lose your house. So who owns your house? Is it you? Or do you have to continue to pay politicians to maintain 'ownership' your house and your freedom?
If you have a mortgage you still own the house, even though they'll take your house if you don't pay.
In both cases they're taking it to cover the debt you owe, but up until they take it you own it.
i dont own my house i rent....i pay council tax....council tax pays for services offered by the council....roads....bins...fire / police rtc
You own your home.
I'm looking more the philosophical question tbh. If you have to pay money to some entity to maintain 'ownership' of something, and can have it taken from you if you do not pay, then how can you really own it?
Philosophically you own the house.
Council tax isn't even always due on the owner. If tenants of a AST dont pay the council tax then nothing happens to the owner and owner keeps the house.
Well, I disagree. If an asset is in a constant state of 'money owed on holding asset', than you are not its ultimate owner. You can not opt out of council services, and if you do, the violence of state will visited upon you to take your freedom or belongings.
Your argument is so weak you couldn’t even address their tenancy point; because they’re 100% correct.
Money is still being paid for the property, there is no period where this isn't so.
It's not the property that you are paying for though.
You are paying for council services around the property, such as the roads that you do not own, the streetlights that you do not own, the bin collection services that you do not own.
Yes, there is a period where this isn’t so. The property owner isn’t paying any money for the property if it’s being rented out.
Lmfao stop paying your gas & electric for long enough and you’ll also end up losing your house. Does that mean E.On own your home?
You have the option not to have those services.
Tax due on something isnt the same as ownership of it.
Missing the point.
Generally you have the right to buy the freehold, should you wish to do so. Might be worth enquiring with the freeholder for the price.
I've just inquired about my lease to get it back up to 99 years. It currently sits at 74 years. This pretty much means that I can only sell my flat to a cash buyer as lenders will not lend on a low lease. The leasing company is asking for £15,000 + 2,500 for admin + £250 for each document produced. I'm am going to pay this as the cash buyers only want to rip me off asking way below the asking price. I feel I have been held to ransom.
Why would you buy leasehold?
Freehold or GTFO.