-
And imo both of those are better positions to be in than being obliged to take whatever nonsense the freeholder decides to do with the property
It turns out if you simply object to everything, refuse to pay and/or be generally unreachable those obligations don't mean a lot. Signed, a joint freeholder.
(doubly so if you're non-resident)
grams-
Good illustration of why the 2 party joint freeholder situation can be a bit shit; one party just sticks their fingers in their ears... la la la I can't hear you.
-
I do hear you, and it's clearly coming for a place of frustration, so I'm not going to respond with anything to make that worse.
I'm not sure if you've investigated it but I think you can instantiate S146 proceedings against a co-freeholder if they're not maintaining their end of the bargain, especially if ground rent is not being paid (assuming you have that), though I am not a lawyer.
Howard
ReekBlefs
I do have my problems with leasehold - I'm quite active in the leaseholdscandal and do some work with LKP - but there are some key differences. Yes, in law, a leaseholder is effectively a tenant. However, unlike a renter, you can sell your lease. That's a huge difference for those of us who see Leasehold as a stepping stone to owning outright.
Also the conditions make you financially responsible for what the landowner decides to do with the building, but doesn't make you responsible for the work itself - unless you're on the board of an RTMCo or a part Freeholder. And imo both of those are better positions to be in than being obliged to take whatever nonsense the freeholder decides to do with the property.
There are definitely downsides and it's great that the leasehold scandal has such traction, but it shouldn't be a flat no for property buyers, especially those of us without the budget to buy freehold.