It's the sum that the tribunal's experts assess as the value.
Yep
so you take it to the tribunal (for which you pay).
and then when they have come up with their value that IS the maximum value that the FH can charge for the selling/extending the lease (today).
But getting a figure for that maximum value requires a lot of work and expense by the purchaser.
There is not a simple finger in the air value for it (which was the point at issue).
tim
See how easy it is to get wrong:
Once the lease is up the property reverts to the *freeholder* .....
So when our freeholder turned up, and suggested a figure (which was about
5% of what we paid for the property) we just paid it. The logic being we could *easily* spend a couple of grand getting the "correct" figure, only to discover it was what was suggested in the first place.
My guess is that is for a house
FH-ers of flats are much less likely to just knock on the door offering a sale as the joint enfranchisement process is much more fraught
but when they knock on the door freely offering an extension they always ask for an uplift in the GR as that ongoing income is what makes the holding the FH worthwhile.
The statutory process requires that the GR become a peppercorn one, so they don't like that at all and do everything that they can to avoid it.
Though opening offers for extensions that I have heard of have been insultingly bad for the tenant, hoping to catch out someone who doesn't know the score (which IME given the scant attention that the likes of Kirtsy and Phil give to leases is not difficult). For one the uplift in the GR itself was more than enough to cover the premium for the reversion but they we still asking for a substantial sum for that.
Whilst it is clear that a request for 5K for a sale is not worth the work of arguing over, an increase in GR to 500 pounds doubling every 10 years and a premium of 20K, for an extension back to 99 years, most certainly is.
tim
yes you pay either way, we came to an agreement. My surveyor change an extra grand for his 6 hours of negotiations to get it down from 57K (leaseholders calculation) to 36K
which was already done an he came to 57K and his fee was £900 for that .
Yes although I don;t know why it can;t be simplier other than for profit re asons.
It was ... turns out the freeholder had about 5 divorces behind him, and needed to raise cash quick. Which, if we had known *before* the knock, would have factored into our negotiations.
You were lucky that the FH accepted your surveyor's opinion
most are very reluctant to do so
tim
I doubt it was luck but can't be sure.
A friend has gone through a similar proces, his flat is smaller and his wa s 29k.
My surveyor 'calculated' the range between 26K and 58k so was very supris ed they went for a 57K . Their surveyor also said I had a study, which I ha ven't.
I would have gone up to about 45K I think.
My surveyor advised me that I shouldn't go to a triburnal as they'd be unli kely to have come out on my side.
There might have been another reason as I had a go... at them about the way they were treating the 90+ year old down stairs and that I;d put it up on socail media and email my MP and another person in parliment that I know pe rsonally.
sorry doesn't make sense
well this depends upon how far apart you are.
But it's a lot different for a LH flat extension than for a LH house sale
the usual point(s) of contention for extensions are over the length of the lease and the new GR.
FH-ers are apt to offer a new lease of 99 years when the statutory right is
+90 years (so someone asking at 60 years should expect a new lease of 150 years). The difference in costs of these two for the purchaser should be close to zero, but the effect on the value to the FH-er is noticeable.and
a GR of circa 500 pounds doubling every n years when the statutory right is for a peppercorn GR.
FH-ers know that they will lose on both these points if pushed to a tribunal so if they are items that are critical to you (they would be to me, but as already pointed out Kirsty will just shrug and say "whatever") taking it to a tribunal is definitely the way to go.
tim
Really ... what so complicated.
1/ To extend your leasehold on teh flat you have to come to a deal with the leaseholder.2/ This MUST be done through a solicitor (I don't think you can do it yuors elf)
3/ you hire a solicitor who tells you to get a surveyer in, to value the pr operty. It MUST be a surveyer not someone from an estate agent that tells y ou how much the property is worth but a chartered surveyer.Who produces a documetn which ends ups telling you how much you should expe ct to pay this IS NOT a fixed figure there's a maxium and a minium. His min was £26k max was £58K in my case
4/ The leaseholders then get their surveyer in who visits the property and comes back with their valuation. in my case £57k5/ We then said we'd take them on a section 42
6/ I then contact my surveyer who talks to their surveyer and they come to a deal which in my case was £36kSo what doesn't make sense ?
Luckily there was no talk of leaving the EU otherwise the cost might have g one into the millions ;-)
No it really depends on the lease remaining mine ws 56 below 52 and the tri buneral is VERY unlikely to grant an extention, and the 'marriage' value (c urious term) is very high anyway.
Yes that's why we went for a section 42 to set these things. The lengh of the lease is NOT a contention it is fixed and set. My lease is for 189 years from 1971. That cannot be changed without re-writing everything which is very expensiv e and not really done because of that.
yes section 42 or so I'm told.
not min my situation apparently due to the relatively short lease remaining .
"My surveyor 'calculated' the range between 26K and 58k so was very surprised they went for a 57K "
who is "they"
what do you mean by "went for"?
tim
>HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.