Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
We're Going To Have To Pull Out Of Purchase : (
43 Answers
We've discovered the sellers were lying about the length of the leasehold on the holiday home( quite how they thought they would get away with it I don't know!) but the searches/ Lamd Registry has discovered it's only 48 years and no way it can be extended as they only do 55 year leases in that area . It's just not long enough and will be hard to sell in a couple of years when it's even less : (
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Smowball. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And that is exactly what is unfair and ought not be allowed Garaman. Allowing a system where one is simply allowing a massive charge for a property that suddenly becomes worthless unless one capitulates to whatever is demanded by the individual who presently has the right to issue these leases. Which bit of that can you not grasp ? One spends thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, to own a property not to have it taken away after a bit. The situation is not one where it is reasonable for society to allow leasehold.
//And that is exactly what is unfair and ought not be allowed Garaman.//
Why is it unfair? You can rent a place on a short term contract, lease a place for a longer period, or buy a place. Would you say renting shouldn't be allowed too because the renter has nothing at the end of the rental period? The practice is misused by some landlords, but so is the rental practice and I wouldn’t suggest banning that, though both could perhaps benefit from some new measures that better protect both parties.
I built some flats a while ago which I have rented out, but if I wanted to lease one for a longer term and someone wanted to lease if for a longer term, I don't see why anyone should else should be able to say that shouldn't be allowed.
//Allowing a system where one is simply allowing a massive charge for a property that suddenly becomes worthless unless one capitulates to whatever is demanded by the individual who presently has the right to issue these leases.//
You haven’t grasped it, OG. It doesn’t suddenly become worthless, its value decreases gradually relative to the term left on the lease, as you might expect if you have paid to use a property for a limited period of time. That was the concern of the OP – that the remaining lease was worth less than the seller was indicating.
Why is it unfair? You can rent a place on a short term contract, lease a place for a longer period, or buy a place. Would you say renting shouldn't be allowed too because the renter has nothing at the end of the rental period? The practice is misused by some landlords, but so is the rental practice and I wouldn’t suggest banning that, though both could perhaps benefit from some new measures that better protect both parties.
I built some flats a while ago which I have rented out, but if I wanted to lease one for a longer term and someone wanted to lease if for a longer term, I don't see why anyone should else should be able to say that shouldn't be allowed.
//Allowing a system where one is simply allowing a massive charge for a property that suddenly becomes worthless unless one capitulates to whatever is demanded by the individual who presently has the right to issue these leases.//
You haven’t grasped it, OG. It doesn’t suddenly become worthless, its value decreases gradually relative to the term left on the lease, as you might expect if you have paid to use a property for a limited period of time. That was the concern of the OP – that the remaining lease was worth less than the seller was indicating.
