Leaseholder taking the michael
- Thread starter rebel rebel
- Start date
True but not always the case.
Seems your buildings insurance has gone up and not the ground rent yes?
That seems to be the case yes.
Seems legit then really
Yeah, my only concern now is the fact they say they took a picture recently, but its blatantly from street view.
True but if the property literally hasn’t changed then a desktop survey is perfectly legitimate too I guess. Whether someone physically inspected the property or not, the outcome would be the same - probably
You're right nothings changed, but they made a point of saying they came and did a survey 2 weeks ago, here's a photo to prove it. And the photo proves they never came.
Sorry, typing fail. No ground rent. There is no exception to this, it's written in Statute. If you've renewed under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 then you have no ground rent. If your freeholder is suggesting otherwise, then they are simply wrong...
Why not always the case?? It's written in statute, so that's not correct. Unless, of course he hasn't renewed the lease via the Act...
Could you link me to the paragraph that says this. We maxed out the lease about 3 months after we bought the flat. And have been paying £150 a year since then.
Becasue it depends on the method you adopt for the lease extension. Statutory or via direct negotiation with the freeholder.
Statutory adds 90 years to the current length and applies a peppercorn ground rent as you say.
The non-statutory route does not - again as you alude to in your post.
So yes. It is correct - although you seem to agree with me also.
The OP just needs to refer to the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
Hence the caveat at the end of my post stating "Unless, of course he hasn't renewed the lease via the Act...". That being said, you'd be bonkers not to use the LAW that was passed that gives you the right, without question (paying a sum) to extend by 90 years and have your ground rent payable reduced to a peppercorn (for which you'll pay a sum usually based on NPV). Although, unless the right was reserved by the previous leaseholder, they may not have had the right to do this (two years to qualify).
Source - I'm a surveyor.
Yes - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/28/section/56 -quoted "a new lease of the flat at a peppercorn rent for a term expiring 90 years after the term date of the existing lease"
Source - me too
We extended the lease to the maximum but it wasn't that low to begin with. So it definitely didn't add 90 years to it.
Doesn't matter how low it is...and there is no maximum. It's residual term +90 years + GR to a peppercorn.
Source - me too
Some freeholders are pretty dodgy and will come up with all kinds of crap excuses to make more from the leaseholder. As others have said, you need to read your lease. There are a few things in your posts that don't make sense and if I was you I'd make sure I really had to pay this before forking out.
- Is there a provision in your lease to charge you for a survey? If not, don't pay anything for that.
- Insurance doesn't form part of the ground rent so this doesn't add up. Is what they are trying to charge you a ground rent increase or is there a service charge you pay?
- Are you 100% sure they are responsible for the buildings insurance on your property? What does it say in your lease? Sometimes you will be responsible, not the freeholder
- Have you seen the policy they are claiming to be paying for? You have a right to see this.
- I smell BS because I don't see why the value of the property increasing would make any insurance premium more expensive. It's the cost to rebuild that insurers care about and that doesn't change just because the value of the property increase.
Man of Honour
Very valid point. I've never, when taking out buildings insurance, been asked the value of my house simply the cost to rebuild.