That's because you're mistakenly tarring all leasehold properties with the same brush due to the scary headlines involving exponential rent increases.
I'm not, I don't read the sensationalist rubbish contained in the daily fail etc. I'm not wanting to turn this into a leasehold vs Freehold debate but below is the reason why I and many others wouldn't consider one.
The TLDR is it's not worth the hassle and likely costs you more money long term that just buying a freehold to being with (especially if you don't buy it at the first opportunity).
When you look at lease hold houses objectively the only person that wins is the developer. The leasehold gives no 'added value' for the 'owner'. The below only applies to discrete houses, not flats. Not that I'd buy a flat unless I for some reason needed to live in the big smoke.
You are purchasing a new build so the price is already premium over a equivalent used property. But the 'discount' for it being leasehold over freehold on the initial purchase is next to nothing. Not only that to shift it later down the line you have to price it way below what an equivalent free hold house just to get people in the door. It's a new build tax double whammy. If the market turns into a buyers market with plenty of choice (like now), you'll have to discount even further.
Not only that buying the freehold gets more expensive over time, every year you leave it costs you another fee, after a period of time those fee's start to increase. The cost to buy out down't go down the more years you pay.
Then there is the hassle of it all, to buy the leasehold you need to pay someone to deal with the legal legwork for you. When you are buying a used leasehold house you rarely get to see the actual terms/contract before you have solicitors working on it. At which point you are down cash if you don't like what they say. You also have the hassle of keeping an eye on the developer to make sure they don't screw you. What if you can't afford it when they offer you the first refusal? They'll sell it to someone else.
So who wins in all of this? Well it's the developer of course, £150/year doesn't sound a lot for an individual (the OP's is a cheap one) but multiply it up over the whole estate and suddenly its a nice little earner. It's just a cash grab at the end of the day and a way to take advantage of a booming market by monetising the properties they have already 'sold'.
There is also the principle of it, would I support this kind of dodgy behavior? No and I vote with my wallet.
Last edited: