No service charge?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    No service charge?

    I hope I am posting this in the right place, please advise if not so

    We are in the process of purchasing a leasehold flat, more specifically the ground floor flat of a terraced house.
    The seller bought the freehold of the whole house, then renovated the gnd flat to sell.

    We were told during negotiations via an EA that there would be no service charge, but the lessees (of upstairs and downstairs flat) would be equally responsible for the costs of building insurance and maintenance of the building (exterior mostly, including roof which we had to negotiate on, since he didn't bother having it renovated before selling and it's been deemed "beyond serviceable repair"). No mention of a reserve/sinking fund, we're assuming because he's a private freeholder (not a managing company)?

    Fast-FWD to now, we've been given a lease that demands service charge be payable and it is written very broadly to include all kinds of "landlord's expenses incurred". Plenty of stuff at his discretion, but very little clarity as to what precisely he will charge, especially since we're all "new" to the building.

    Obviously he must have been advised by his solicitor to put those charges under the "service charge" umbrella, so our question is: would there be any other way to do this? To specify the "building insurance and maintenance of the building" we're expected to pay in any other way on the lease? Can we object this point at all? Maybe to be specific and restrictive at all?

    It all seems a little odd because we have met him and seen first hand his attitude towards repairs: like with the roof, if it ain't coming down now, just wait for it to happen. There's even a cracked window with a huge hole upstairs (front of property) and he was only able to shrug at it, like he wasn't the freeholder but a passerby.

    We'd really appreciate some thoughts on this, please help!

    #2
    Walk away IIWY.
    To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

    Comment


      #3
      I would ask to buy the freehold to both
      with your flat. But then i am used to managing property you may not want to.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by JK0 View Post
        Walk away IIWY.
        Why do you say that?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Codger View Post
          I would ask to buy the freehold to both
          with your flat. But then i am used to managing property you may not want to.
          Oh, we would love to! Trust me, we know freehold is better, no doubts there.
          Unfort. the other flat has only 60 years left on the lease so it's in the freeholder interest to hold on to it and we're definitely not paying marriage value on that!

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by 1stFlat22 View Post

            Why do you say that?
            If you can't see why, from what you've written, go for it.
            To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

            Comment


              #7
              You'll be paying half the insurance and half the repairs as with any other lease, what did you expect ?
              Clearly an RTM will give you more control over costs but your biggest problem might be the opposite and nothing gets done at all ...

              Comment


                #8
                If the other leaseholder wants to do rtm you will get control of costs.

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X