Leasehold questions

[Mixwicks]

Oh Dear , . the scam with the insurance is that the landlord get commission from the insurance co so it will be probably alot higher than it should be . they tried it with me same story about a reputable insurance co , so i told them i was with norwich union

 

Yep it looks like this is the case. They require me use their "approved" insurer or pay £30 if I use a different company. What a load of ********!!!! I'm going to look into buying the freehold as soon as I can!

[wibbles]

Coppen Estates owned the lease on a house I owned in Hillsborough a couple of years back. They are very difficult to get hold of.

I recall a similar charge for Buildings Insurance but I just didn't pay it and then moved on.

 

I'd question the charge and demand a breakdown of what the charge actually covers (administration??). If that's the case then you may have a good case for disputing the charge as being unreasonable..similar to bank charges

[lobster]

Can they insist that someone takes out insurance with a certain company though? What action can they take if you don't?

it depends on the terms of the lease , most are suitably vague only requiring a reputable one . i should get your solicitor to check the terms of the lease if there is no requirement for the landlords one ( and i doubt if there is ) as long as you have got it and can prove it to the landlord , you should tell them to get stuffed

[topflat29]

If you are a leasehold house and have been ripped off by overcharged insurance , then under the Commonhold Act 2002, you can exercise your right to buy your own insurance and serve a notice of cover on the freeholder company - see sample notice

 

http://www.brianiddon.org.uk/advice/notice_of_cover.doc

 

If you are a leasehold house on 800 years lease, then you can buy the freehold for about 10 x annual ground rent + legal expenses.

[Strix]

you can't possibly be held over a barrel wrt insurance in this fashion by your landlord, as there are mortgage companies who have insurance with them as a condition of the mortgage - and you can't be insured twice - it's illegal!

 

I can recommend Irwin Mitchell for the purchase of a lease

 

If you're thinking about doing it, just get on with it. I'm sure our's took in the region of 12 months to actually complete from start to finish

[martyn800]

I'm buying a house and these things have come up with the leasehold - I'm waiting for a response from my solictor but if you have advice it will be much appreciated!

 

The vendors have been paying ground rent for a neighbouring property as well as their own. This seems a bit unusual. Why would they do this and should I make it a condition of the sale that I only pay ground rent for my own property? It only a few quid a year, but I'm a bit supicious:suspect:

 

The leaseholders have asked that I take out buildings insurance with a certain company. Apparently because they want to make sure it is with a reputable insurer. Again this seems a bit strange:suspect:

My leasehold company panicked me in exactly the same way regarding insurance. I took advice and insured with my own choice of insurer. I had no problems from doing this. I still feel angry about it as I remember how worried they made me from what is basically a money making scam designed to prey on peoples vulnerability when they are in the anxious position of buying a house. Houses should all be freehold in my view and get rid of the leaseholding parasites.

[Missdan]

If you are a leasehold house and have been ripped off by overcharged insurance , then under the Commonhold Act 2002, you can exercise your right to buy your own insurance and serve a notice of cover on the freeholder company - see sample notice

 

http://www.brianiddon.org.uk/advice/notice_of_cover.doc

 

If you are a leasehold house on 800 years lease, then you can buy the freehold for about 10 x annual ground rent + legal expenses.

 

My leaseholder wants £1600 to buy the freehold, this includes £50 fee to land registry and admin fees, as my ground rent is only £26 per year I think this is a bit excessive, but then again I don't know how much the fees would cost, any ideas please.

[martyn800]

if you open up the thread by Foxxx, at the top right there's a button for 'search this thread', and if you put 'Coppen' in there it'll make sure you haven't missed any instances of them being mentioned in there

 

I can't for the life of me remember who our lease was fairly recently sold to, but we did attend the auction for it, and were interested to see how aggressively some of these leases were pursued by a small handful of companies. As ours was for a peppercorn rent, we could only assume the intention was to scam somebody somewhere along the line, else it just wouldn't be commercially viable as a purchase

 

I'm also sure Coppen is a name that I've heard before in the context of leases, and I can't think why that would be if it was in a positive light

There is a good chance that I am wrong about this, but I thought that if a leasehold was sold on then the resident at the property has the first option to buy. Does anybody know if this is true?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

My leasehold company panicked me in exactly the same way regarding insurance. I took advice and insured with my own choice of insurer. I had no problems from doing this. I still feel angry about it as I remember how worried they made me from what is basically a money making scam designed to prey on peoples vulnerability when they are in the anxious position of buying a house. Houses should all be freehold in my view and get rid of the leaseholding parasites.

 

My leaseholder wants £1600 to buy the freehold, this includes £50 fee to land registry and admin fees, as my ground rent is only £26 per year I think this is a bit excessive, but then again I don't know how much the fees would cost, any ideas please.

Both these contain the same error. The house-owner IS the leaseholder; ground rent is paid to the freehold reversioner.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

There is a good chance that I am wrong about this, but I thought that if a leasehold was sold on then the resident at the property has the first option to buy. Does anybody know if this is true?

For a house: no, it's untrue.

The leaseholder does have a legal right to enfranchise [= buy the freehold reversion] once he/she has owned the leasehold for at least two years. There is no right of first refusal to buy the f/r, though. The law is different for flats, so maybe that's what confused you.

 

Oh, and saying 'resident' is misleading. The right to enfranchise belongs to the leaseholder, whether or not resident; but a mere resident who does not own the leasehold has no such right.