Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

"I just hope someone will step in."


Recommended Posts

Surprised no one spotted this. There's some choice quotes on the perils of shared ownership, selling, and cladding woes. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-54062189

Some of my favourites:

Quote

She owns 35% of it, with a housing association owning the rest.

She gave up £30K to get a mortgage and own basically nothing. 

Quote

She told Radio 1 Newsbeat: "I had five buyers interested none of them are going ahead.

"I just hope someone will step in."

Please save me from my idiotic decision. Maybe a cash buyer unhindered by mortgage requirements can save her, oh wait

Quote

She says her only hope is a cash buyer but they are offering much less than she paid.

oh dear. 

Quote

"Cash buyers are investors and they always want to get a bargain.

"But now because they know of the cladding issues, they offer even less, as they know we are desperate and they want to exploit this desperation".

Those wicked, evil, cash buyers unwilling to bail you out and take on the liability themselves. Don't they realise she had a plan to move before her 27th birthday and now it's ruined! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

36 minutes ago, sammersmith said:

Surprised no one spotted this. There's some choice quotes on the perils of shared ownership, selling, and cladding woes. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-54062189

Some of my favourites:

She gave up £30K to get a mortgage and own basically nothing. 

Please save me from my idiotic decision. Maybe a cash buyer unhindered by mortgage requirements can save her, oh wait

oh dear. 

Those wicked, evil, cash buyers unwilling to bail you out and take on the liability themselves. Don't they realise she had a plan to move before her 27th birthday and now it's ruined! 

But before Grenfell, cladding was hardly an issue.

In fact, you were probably better off buying something that had been reclad, because then you wouldn't be billed for the refurbishment.

This is the kind of thing that can happen to anyone, no matter how prepared they are. A change in the way the world works has come out of nowhere and screwed them, and the same could happen to you, me or anyone, no ,matter how smart they are, on potentially the biggest purchase we make in our lives.

I think they deserve some sympathy, because one day that could be you or me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

But before Grenfell, cladding was hardly an issue.

In fact, you were probably better off buying something that had been reclad, because then you wouldn't be billed for the refurbishment.

This is the kind of thing that can happen to anyone, no matter how prepared they are. A change in the way the world works has come out of nowhere and screwed them, and the same could happen to you, me or anyone, no ,matter how smart they are, on potentially the biggest purchase we make in our lives.

I think they deserve some sympathy, because one day that could be you or me.

 

Thing is though, according to the article, she bought the flat 2 years ago. Grenfell was 3 years ago and the cladding was identified early as a contributing factor and was already being ripped off other blocks. So, she would have been aware of cladding being a potential concern for a year before she bought. 

As for having to pay for all of the work even though she only owns 35%, well that's just shared ownership. It was the same argument i heard over 10 years ago and nothing will change on this front as the'll always be people jumping in to SO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I think they deserve some sympathy, because one day that could be you or me.

Agreed, they didn't do anything wrong. The government is entirely responsible for this mess, poor application of building reg's and piss poor response to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sammersmith said:

Thing is though, according to the article, she bought the flat 2 years ago. Grenfell was 3 years ago and the cladding was identified early

1 year after and there was no requirement to prove that it was safe before she bought it. Yet now there is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I have sympathy with those caught up in the cladding fiasco....I doubt solicitors acting on behalf of buyers would have asked the question, and the lenders at the time then lent against highly inflammable homes......there are very strict regulations attached to the foam used in household furniture, it is a travesty this cladding was allowed to be wrapped around homes without the residents knowledge until too late....

Buying a shared ownership is completely different......buyers knew exactly what they were buying and also renting.....all the responsibility and risks of owning but renting.....worse of both worlds.;)   

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Agreed, they didn't do anything wrong. The government is entirely responsible for this mess, poor application of building reg's and piss poor response to it.

So, should the government I mean rishi pay

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

1 year after and there was no requirement to prove that it was safe before she bought it. Yet now there is. 

A few articles from 2018, the year that she bought 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/18/grenfell-style-cladding-drops-flat-value-nerisa-ahmed

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/16/value-of-london-flats-slashed-by-grenfell-style-cladding

https://www.ftadviser.com/mortgages/2018/01/12/borrowers-refused-mortgages-over-grenfell-type-safety-fears/

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/lender-refuses-mortgages-on-housing-association-flats-due-to-fire-safety-concerns-53799

You may be right that the explicit EWS1 form wasn't being mentioned, but it must have seemed obvious to anyone at that time with a passing interest in buying that this was causing an issue with resale and potential remedial work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sammersmith said:

A few articles from 2018, the year that she bought 

<snip>

You may be right that the explicit EWS1 form wasn't being mentioned, but it must have seemed obvious to anyone at that time with a passing interest in buying that this was causing an issue with resale and potential remedial work. 

When a looking to buy any property everyone pays for the service of a professional conveyancer, their job is to check out all legal issues, a surveyor checks the home is of safe and sound construction......we pay them to look after our interests, if a lender then goes on to lend it must be seen as a property able to be used as and taken as good and sound security.

Tower blocks depending especially high rise flats of certain construction often only available to cash buyers....lenders won't touch them. ;)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, winkie said:

When a looking to buy any property everyone pays for the service of a professional conveyancer, their job is to check out all legal issues, a surveyor checks the home is of safe and sound construction......we pay them to look after our interests, if a lender then goes on to lend it must be seen as a property able to be used as and taken as good and sound security.

Yes, yes, all that is true but what about personal responsibility and speculating about the future?

I would not personally have jumped into a shared ownership flat wrapped with cladding 1 year after Grenfell. That would be nuts no matter what the current regulations were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the worst cases are being presented here.

Most people in the same position have nothing to do with cladding, but rather the wait for the EWS1 certificate. It is perhaps convenient to conflate that so many people are affected, in reality it must boil down to a couple of hundred of blocks.

IMO there are already a raft of measures being taken; many of the big housebuilders are eating the cost themselves - perhaps an investment into future political favours; governmental pressure not to fleece leaseholders like they do for stuff like changing lightbulbs.

The worst-case scenarios we've seen are where the freeholder isn't a massive builder, there are a small number of flats to apportion the charge across, and they are cheekily inputting some profit for the work. So someone might be charged £80,000, and then we get 'leaseholders face £80,000 bill', the inference being that all of them will, which is way off the mark.

In the most extreme cases I'd expect government to step in. But there are a lot of cases which are simply there for the ride.... for instance a block of flats denied EWS1 not because of cladding, but wooden balconies. Should this be paid for as well? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, winkie said:

When a looking to buy any property everyone pays for the service of a professional conveyancer, their job is to check out all legal issues, a surveyor checks the home is of safe and sound construction......we pay them to look after our interests, if a lender then goes on to lend it must be seen as a property able to be used as and taken as good and sound security.

Tower blocks depending especially high rise flats of certain construction often only available to cash buyers....lenders won't touch them. ;)

 

 

Our (still pending since February) sale was affected by this issue.

Often I would agree with caveat emptor but this is I believe the first ever piece of retroactive UK building regulation in history, it is a quite bizarre and a potentially worrying precedent.

Ours is a two storey maisonette, with about two meters of timber rain shield cladding about the size of a very small dinner table, meets all building regulations current and historic (double regulation thickness for material and not “significant amounts” as per the guidelines stated in current building regulation documents), buyers lender still kept asking for ews1, even though ews1 states on the form itself that it does not apply to buildings of less than 18 meters outside of a very very small set of specific criteria.

Because our late Mum had a rare form of cancer which made mobility difficult the place is actually internally fitted with additional fire systems as well, so technically about as “safe” as you could reasonably get.

We are lucky enough to know a structural engineer who came out to look at our place, laughed and said “what are they playing at” he then did us a letter to RICs who overturned the original surveyor.....point is however many people are not fortunate enough to know someone like this (Complete fluke) and this could render millions of homes without value. Great for a house price crash, but then I don’t see the benefit to anybody in a crash of properties that nobody can buy or sell, unless the plan would be to just dump your house after you are done with it 😁.

Only reason I chose to bring this up is to not assume that this mess up by the government is just limited to tower blocks, it’s a gigantic mess created by an unqualified housing minister. If it applies to our block which is for all intents and purposes a generic detached house split into two living units, then it can and should in theory be applied to any house with any external wall detail in future as there is no material structural difference.
 

It’s a balls up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, shlomo said:

So, should the government I mean rishi pay

Everything should be free for everyone 

22 minutes ago, winkie said:

e pay them to look after our interests, if a lender then goes on to lend it must be seen as a property able to be used as and taken as good and sound security.

A valuer will only spend 10 minutes in a flat if that.  They do not look at the structure or materials used.  To have that report done requires the surveyor to be instructed to do a full structural survey cost £1000 plus.  Many people will assume on a new or modern property it is under warranty so does not need a full structural.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Why did the bank lend money on this?  If she were to disappear tomorrow they would surely lose money?

 

Because at the time they originally lent the regulations were not in place, this has only truly begun as of January this year as a result of something called “advice note 14”.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

Why did the bank lend money on this?  If she were to disappear tomorrow they would surely lose money?

 

Because she could not run away with the property, I think the banks must be s hitting it

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, simon2 said:

Only the worst cases are being presented here.

Most people in the same position have nothing to do with cladding, but rather the wait for the EWS1 certificate. It is perhaps convenient to conflate that so many people are affected, in reality it must boil down to a couple of hundred of blocks.

IMO there are already a raft of measures being taken; many of the big housebuilders are eating the cost themselves - perhaps an investment into future political favours; governmental pressure not to fleece leaseholders like they do for stuff like changing lightbulbs.

The worst-case scenarios we've seen are where the freeholder isn't a massive builder, there are a small number of flats to apportion the charge across, and they are cheekily inputting some profit for the work. So someone might be charged £80,000, and then we get 'leaseholders face £80,000 bill', the inference being that all of them will, which is way off the mark.

In the most extreme cases I'd expect government to step in. But there are a lot of cases which are simply there for the ride.... for instance a block of flats denied EWS1 not because of cladding, but wooden balconies. Should this be paid for as well? 

Ex council are anecdotally the worst.

The "cheeky profit" from the builder when invoicing the council is often extreme. As you know the person signing it off isnt paying themsleves nor bothered seemingly.

When recharged down to any private leaseholders the costs can be extreme 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms Martorelli is Italian.

You might want to debate the sense of aLHA, setup to provide subbed housing to non British.

Or the sanity of someone expecting to flip a shared ownership flat within 4 years.

Should have been renting.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 429 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.