Wampus Cat Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 BBC piece about the insane rise in service charges in the capital. In the example they quote, the charge exceeds the rent on a 60% share. The 'owners' can't do anything about it, but they also can't sell as the property 'is no longer desirable due to the service charge'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro In the article, owner Patrick Duffy says: 'as a Gay man I love being sucked dry, but not like this'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yodigo Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 42 minutes ago, Wampus Cat said: BBC piece about the insane rise in service charges in the capital. In the example they quote, the charge exceeds the rent on a 60% share. The 'owners' can't do anything about it, but they also can't sell as the property 'is no longer desirable due to the service charge'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro In the article, owner Patrick Duffy says: 'as a Gay man I love being sucked dry, but not like this'. Leasehold flats... really? If anyone still wants one after reading that, then they'll get what they deserve. With their 60% they could have got a nice detached house somewhere just about commutable to London. But I'm sure that's Boring-Land. Oh well, they can't afford anything now anyway, and are fully caught in the trap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARTINX9 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, Wampus Cat said: BBC piece about the insane rise in service charges in the capital. In the example they quote, the charge exceeds the rent on a 60% share. The 'owners' can't do anything about it, but they also can't sell as the property 'is no longer desirable due to the service charge'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro In the article, owner Patrick Duffy says: 'as a Gay man I love being sucked dry, but not like this'. Didn't he used to be in Dallas? It really is scandalous - these people cannot sell the flats, cannot rent them out and cannot leave. The freeholder has them over a barrel - and the law doesn't protect them one bit. Leasehold is bad enough but shared ownership leasehold is the pits. You might only own 35 per cent - but you must pay 100 per cent of the service charge and cost of repairs. Its a licence to print money. PS he didn't really say that in the article - its the BBC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, Wampus Cat said: BBC piece about the insane rise in service charges in the capital. In the example they quote, the charge exceeds the rent on a 60% share. The 'owners' can't do anything about it, but they also can't sell as the property 'is no longer desirable due to the service charge'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro In the article, owner Patrick Duffy says: 'as a Gay man I love being sucked dry, but not like this'. I doubt he says that in a bbc article, BUT I was actually shocked to see this on bbc Scotland...starts at 9.32 and the slightly weird (for the bbc) moment is at 12.28. Edited March 15 by dances with sheeple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Angry Capitalist Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, Wampus Cat said: BBC piece about the insane rise in service charges in the capital. In the example they quote, the charge exceeds the rent on a 60% share. The 'owners' can't do anything about it, but they also can't sell as the property 'is no longer desirable due to the service charge'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro In the article, owner Patrick Duffy says: 'as a Gay man I love being sucked dry, but not like this'. A complete racket!!! I guess the "shared ownership" experiment has pretty much met its denouement here. An oxymoron of the truest sense. Clearly, property cannot be shared much like a vehicle or any other product/commodity really. The leasehold system really is a piece of work. Was looking on a Reddit thread the other day and was going to post it on here about a situation where a leaseholder was forced to pay a ridiculous bill and if refused to do so the landlord would have had the right to take over the apartment and change the locks etc. Apartments are for renting. It really is that simple. Edited March 15 by The Angry Capitalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said: 1 hour ago, Wampus Cat said: BBC piece about the insane rise in service charges in the capital. In the example they quote, the charge exceeds the rent on a 60% share. The 'owners' can't do anything about it, but they also can't sell as the property 'is no longer desirable due to the service charge'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro In the article, owner Patrick Duffy says: 'as a Gay man I love being sucked dry, but not like this'. Looks like my link got lost, I will try again. I would not expect that to be printed in a bbc article, but this bbc Scotland show was shocking in that the bbc showed this - starts at 9,25 and the weird (for the bbc) bit is at 12.29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) "Ain"t no legal drama in the W*ank bank!" Edited March 15 by dances with sheeple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) How did that get out on the bbc? Edited March 15 by dances with sheeple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) How did that get out on the bbc? Edited March 15 by dances with sheeple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurCopperCrutch Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 hours ago, Wampus Cat said: BBC piece about the insane rise in service charges in the capital. In the example they quote, the charge exceeds the rent on a 60% share. The 'owners' can't do anything about it, but they also can't sell as the property 'is no longer desirable due to the service charge'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro In the article, owner Patrick Duffy says: 'as a Gay man I love being sucked dry, but not like this'. I don't know why the poor choose to live in London. It's a miserable shithole without capital behind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) WTF. Edited March 15 by dances with sheeple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 3 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said: I don't know why the poor choose to live in London. It's a miserable shithole without capital behind you. I don't know why anyone lives there. But they really do think There Is No Alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbuywontbuy Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 5 hours ago, Wampus Cat said: In the article, owner Patrick Duffy says: 'as a Gay man I love being sucked dry, but not like this'. He probably hopes it's all a nightmare and he's going to wake up in the shower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiringonlychild Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 6 hours ago, yodigo said: Leasehold flats... really? If anyone still wants one after reading that, then they'll get what they deserve. With their 60% they could have got a nice detached house somewhere just about commutable to London. But I'm sure that's Boring-Land. Oh well, they can't afford anything now anyway, and are fully caught in the trap. You can't actually get that for less than 500k in the commuter towns anymore. For the price of my 1930s residents managed flat, i can no longer afford to buy an average home in the top 10 most expensive cities in the uk and that extends further than zone 5 london. But they can get a share of freehold conversion (my husband hates those as many have bad layouts) or a flat in a development where the freehold has been bought by the residents and self managed (avoid ones with lifts!) . As someone whose husband is director of the residents management company, i can tell you that repair costs has gone up massively based on the quotes. Though we do have a sink fund of £120k and we need to keep 70k there at all times. So while service charges have stayed the same for five years, they would have to rise for the long term sustainability of the sink fund and future repairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiringonlychild Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 5 hours ago, The Angry Capitalist said: A complete racket!!! I guess the "shared ownership" experiment has pretty much met its denouement here. An oxymoron of the truest sense. Clearly, property cannot be shared much like a vehicle or any other product/commodity really. The leasehold system really is a piece of work. Was looking on a Reddit thread the other day and was going to post it on here about a situation where a leaseholder was forced to pay a ridiculous bill and if refused to do so the landlord would have had the right to take over the apartment and change the locks etc. Apartments are for renting. It really is that simple. There was a woman who didn't pay service charges in my development for 10 years and she still owns the flat.. She was even a landlord at some point and not living in the flat so no idea why she couldn't pay £150 per month in London. As its residents managed, they didn't chase her out but agreed a payment plan with her and after 10 years when they actually decided to start doing stuff to the development. You have to be careful with flats and its a choice but i would rather do that and stay in an area i like. Its 3 seconds to type out a question before viewing-what are service charges, is there ground rent, who is freeholder, how long is lease. You can look up residents management companies on companies house. If it had been me for safety sake would have bought a share of freehold conversion (rather than in a block) but then again i think those may have tendency to fall into disrepair as its harder to administer stuff between two people.. So the block option means that if there is a sink fund you are saving money for the future.. You don't get security like that in the private rentor sector. The renters reform bill is dead in the water and as my husband said last night, in a time of high interest rates, having a middleman between you and the mortgage lender (landlord) means the cost of shelter is jacked up.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huggy Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 If someone can effectively charge you any money at any time for something, guess what's going to happen? Adding shared ownership in the mix too, Jesus. HPI really is a cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewwk Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 6 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said: I don't know why the poor choose to live in London. It's a miserable shithole without capital behind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Goggles Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 7 hours ago, The Angry Capitalist said: A complete racket!!! I guess the "shared ownership" experiment has pretty much met its denouement here. An oxymoron of the truest sense. Clearly, property cannot be shared much like a vehicle or any other product/commodity really. The leasehold system really is a piece of work. Was looking on a Reddit thread the other day and was going to post it on here about a situation where a leaseholder was forced to pay a ridiculous bill and if refused to do so the landlord would have had the right to take over the apartment and change the locks etc. Apartments are for renting. It really is that simple. I've said this many times before, but when the alternative is renting on a 6 month rolling tenancy where the landlord can evict you at short notice without fault, anything looks attractive. The whole housing market in the UK is broken and this government has no intention of fixing it. Whether a new government will fix leasehold and improve tenants rights is open to question. It seems like a no-brainer, it's "free" and doesn't require raising any money through taxation to do it, and it would improve the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people. But many MPs are also landlords, and many property companies donate to political parties. So I don't hold much hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70PC Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 8 hours ago, The Angry Capitalist said: A complete racket!!! I guess the "shared ownership" experiment has pretty much met its denouement here. An oxymoron of the truest sense. Clearly, property cannot be shared much like a vehicle or any other product/commodity really. The leasehold system really is a piece of work. Was looking on a Reddit thread the other day and was going to post it on here about a situation where a leaseholder was forced to pay a ridiculous bill and if refused to do so the landlord would have had the right to take over the apartment and change the locks etc. Apartments are for renting. It really is that simple. I don't understand why lawyers engaged by purchasers are not being sued for these costs. Buyers pay for a building survey to check the property is sound. They pay lawyers to ensure that the terms are legal and reasonable. Liabilities being imposed on buyers look transparently corrupt to any rational person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Measure twice, cut once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MancTom Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 37 minutes ago, 70PC said: I don't understand why lawyers engaged by purchasers are not being sued for these costs. Buyers pay for a building survey to check the property is sound. They pay lawyers to ensure that the terms are legal and reasonable. Liabilities being imposed on buyers look transparently corrupt to any rational person. how do you know the lawyers didn't tell them and it was ignored? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debt Slaves Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Well... they can sell, they just have to lower the price. Might mean that they don't get to experience HPI, houses go up and down and they willingly hopped on the hamster wheel leveraged against them. This shared ownership nonsense has helped the HPI sentiment over the years as I'm sure I've heard when these houses/flats are sold they are listed at the full price, on the land registry, even if the buyer only bought 20%. It's sad and laughable, you own 20% and have to pay 100% of any costs and service charges, while the provider just get to collect the proceeds. Racket. New slaves, debt slaves, house slaves, you're free but you have to work until retirement for a roof over your head and if you're lucky when you're not able bodied, you get to sell your house to pay for your care. The rentiers/boomers/MPs who are benefitting don't care, greed is human nature. Don't you know it was their superior business acumen that got them where they are, doesn't matter that they would not be able to repeat what they did in the past if presented with the current circumstances and an inflation adjusted salary from when they bought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70PC Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 10 minutes ago, MancTom said: how do you know the lawyers didn't tell them and it was ignored? Fair point and I don't. I am aware that buyers have been encouraged or incentivised to use lawyers who should not be taking on the work. Straight advice laid on the line is the duty of the lawyers advising buyers. Only a tiny minority of people would agree egregious terms if this was happening. The implications of ground rents doubling every decade or service costs where the owners have no recourse to change providers is a wide open door for corrupt practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trampa501 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 This type of scheme always seemed a bit of a scam, but I do have a little sympathy for those caught out. They probably thought it was the only way to "get on the ladder" and everyone (ok not here) was saying property prices only go up. The alternative was to just see the rent go up from 1500 to 2000 a month (and beyond). Quote I don't know why anyone lives there. But they really do think There Is No Alternative. For certain jobs it's probably the only place to find them in this country. Although I'm still in London I can't see how my life would be worse by locating to other places. Maybe public transport would be more difficult. You can only visit museums/go to the theatre so many times, and nothing to stop you visiting the place if you want. But why pay a premium for a beer/coffee/taxi compared to elsewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yodigo Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 4 hours ago, desiringonlychild said: You can't actually get that for less than 500k in the commuter towns anymore. For the price of my 1930s residents managed flat, i can no longer afford to buy an average home in the top 10 most expensive cities in the uk and that extends further than zone 5 london. But they can get a share of freehold conversion (my husband hates those as many have bad layouts) or a flat in a development where the freehold has been bought by the residents and self managed (avoid ones with lifts!) . As someone whose husband is director of the residents management company, i can tell you that repair costs has gone up massively based on the quotes. Though we do have a sink fund of £120k and we need to keep 70k there at all times. So while service charges have stayed the same for five years, they would have to rise for the long term sustainability of the sink fund and future repairs. I meant on the very edge. Way out, Milton Keynes (or further) - I know the end of the world, any further and you'll fall off the edge! Plenty of people do. The below or a crummy leasehold-shared-ownership. Quicker to Euston from Mk than many places much closer. https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/142746551#/?channel=RES_BUY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.