Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,383
That should be dealt with by banding, if you've got a flat in a higher band than houses locally you can challenge the banding - it should be based on property value so that doesn't make sense
Fleecehold
- Thread starter Goodie
- Start date
I think the key words on the increase being 'at least'. A huge problem is that because these things are unregulated the management company is under no obligation to be cost effective. For example there's nothing at all to stop them sub contracting maintenance to affiliated companies at inflated cost. In some cases they're held in check by the fact that the residents could in theory oust them, but in many newer estates the developer will bake their preferred company into the deeds which can make it all but impossible to get rid (in these cases solicitors need to advise their clients not to proceed with the purchase but that rarely seems to happen!).
I too will never touch a leasehold again. It's just too open to abuse and the imbalance of power too great between the parties.
Soldato
Sure, the services outside the estate all need to be paid for but, when you compare it to estates or streets that have full council adoption of the common areas (roads, paths, grassed areas etc etc) then the person on the factored estate is effectively paying twice for those areas - once in their council tax and once on the factor fees.
Whether you agree on there being a "discount" or not, do you at least see the point being made about paying twice?
Leechhold is nothing more than renting.
I wish the government put law to control it but instead it’s seen as freemarket.. when it’s nothing more than criminal activity by abusing the position of power.
Worse than renting, in renting, the landlord is responsible for repairs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,383
I can see the point, I just don't agree with it, there's nothing stopping anyone from accessing parks and play areas anywhere, so the fact that you've chosen to buy a property in an area with a private park I don't think makes any difference to what council tax you should pay. You still drive along all the other roads to get to work etc. The one area I almost can see a point for a discount would be waste collection if the bin lorry doesn't come to your area, but then there is still waste management facilities that you do have access to as part of your council tax, so the actual difference it would make is small.
The area I live in doesn't have a council park/play area, I dont expect a discount on my council tax because something is not here that other estates have, because there is nothing stopping me from accessing one further away even if it's less convenient, nor because we have a swing set in our garden that I paid for.
Council tax is also something you should check out before you buy a property so that you are aware of what it costs.
I agree the current situation with leasehold houses and houses with management fees is stupid, I just dont agree that those properties should get a discount on the council tax, the management side of it needs sorting out.
Last edited:
Agree. I would be tens of thousands better off if I rented my flat instead of buying. This pressure to get on the housing ladder is just silly, especially if it's a leasehold or a help to buy. Both as bad as each other.
it might only be £300 a year now but in 10 years time the construction companies will just package all their site's contracts up into a nice little bundle and sell them off to an asset management firm in the city. Then you watch the bills rise!
That’s not been possible for a few years now. Government have mandated resident led managed areas to all big developers.
One estate management company is making home owners sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) before they can see supporting information for their service charges.
inews.co.uk
New-build buyers told to sign NDAs to see details of 'fleecehold' estate fees
Homeowners tell i they don't know where their money is going as they face soaring mandatory charges for services such as grass cutting
inews.co.uk
One estate management company is making home owners sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) before they can see supporting information for their service charges.
New-build buyers told to sign NDAs to see details of 'fleecehold' estate fees
Homeowners tell i they don't know where their money is going as they face soaring mandatory charges for services such as grass cutting
Is that legal?
I wonder how they would respond to a subject access request under the data protection act, or if you did sign an NDA, if it wall fall under 'unfair contract terms' legislation. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c7f43ed915d48c241023b/oft311.pdf
A standard term is unfair 'if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it
causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising
under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'– Regulation 5(1).
Last edited:
Commissario
I would have thought that would get thrown out of the first court to look at it as from the sounds of it it is very much an unfair balance of power, and denying someone the right to see what they're actually being charged for.
The temptation would be to offer to send them a check for the charges but they had to sign an NDA saying they would never show the cheque to anyone or use any means to duplicate it either physically or electronically (basically you've given them the cheque, but they can never cash it as that would involve either showing it to someone else, or making a copy of it).
The temptation would be to offer to send them a check for the charges but they had to sign an NDA saying they would never show the cheque to anyone or use any means to duplicate it either physically or electronically (basically you've given them the cheque, but they can never cash it as that would involve either showing it to someone else, or making a copy of it).
I'd be tempted to be more 'ballsy' than that... I'd sign the NDA, and then publish it in a newspaper, take out a full page advert or something.
Allow the management company to take me to court over it, if they are that stupid, and then nail them to the wall over it.
Soldato
Can we do a petition to have Fleecehold be a legal term?
So when we browse Rightmove it will have filters, show freehold, leasehold, and fleecehold
So when we browse Rightmove it will have filters, show freehold, leasehold, and fleecehold
Haha would never happen, estate agents won't even tell you until you go through solicitors most likely.Can we do a petition to have Fleecehold be a legal term?
So when we browse Rightmove it will have filters, show freehold, leasehold, and fleecehold
Probably best bet is to look at the title deeds for £3.
Last edited:
Or just ask the agent if it's free hold... it's a binary yes/no question.
I belive they have to state this when advertising also, as if they did not, it would be false advertising.
if they lie then it's fraud/false representation.
Last edited:
These houses are ''freehold" with a service charge, the estate agent will definitely tell you the former and may tell you the latter.
Ahh yes, I see what you mean... trixy mo-fo's.
Unadopted by the council, though, and that's where the contention and mis-representation comes in...
It's a total con, and I feel a new law should be passed, as the management crap is in the deeds of the free-hold, so these people are technically on the hook and whim of some opaque company.
I mean some things do need to be written into deeds, for example, in my freehold, I'm not allowed to build a slaughter shed for pigs and/or chickens within 5 yards of the freeway, so that was a bummer!
But jokes aside, it's a clear abuse of process when you have financial entities stipulating things like we are talking about in this thread... when it's very clearly for profit/extortion.
Last edited:
Soldato
The original intention behind fleecehold was because councils were being forced to adopt substandard sites where roads and open spaces (as insisted on per the planning) were not up to suitable standards, or completely ignored before handing over and councils were having to spend thousands repairing or rebuilding the public areas after the developers moved on. Developers insisted on a right to charge for "standard upkeep" of the area like a council would when under their wing but now developers know they can use it as a cash cow which is why sites are no longer handed over for adoption.
I didn't even know we were responsible for a pumping station because shared ownership is a sublease and we don't get to see the head lease to see what the housing association is responsible for.
I didn't even know we were responsible for a pumping station because shared ownership is a sublease and we don't get to see the head lease to see what the housing association is responsible for.
It's the slow but sure way to pump money into private business.
Vote tory for a knight hood .. Bow to the crown!
Last edited: