Owning your own home

Ahh thats one of way of doing it. Not sure what avenue/department you will be get it. I had to deal with a 450mm burst in someones 3 acre or whatever garden which happened to be a 9 hole. House has been sold recently but you would think with a reservoir at the top you would wonder....

My understanding is that most leaseholders of leasehold houses have a right to buy the freehold. They are entitled to exercise that right and then due legal process can happen and - if necessary - the courts will determine whether or not the leaseholders do have that legal right. Who on earth refuses to exercise their legal rights because of what their opponent's legal advice is allegedly says?

I believe this is correct for leasehold flats, but owners of leasehold houses have fewer rights in law. Flats can force their freeholder to sell (or take up the right to first refusal); houses can't.

But you're right that this is being portrayed as being worse than it is. Sure, the leases are short, and sure, the freeholders are refusing to extend them. But all the leaseholders need to do is take the freeholders to First Tier Tribunal - there's a statute in law that says Freeholders must be reasonable - by refusing to extend they are being unreasonable.

So yes they're not worthless. If this situation went on indefinitely they'd become worthless. But really they've just got a bit of legal wrangling ahead of them and BAM they're back in the black.

I had a similar thing with my place. No way could I afford where I live if the freeholders weren't such dicks and scared all the buyers off. I thank 'em - it's a discount on the house price with the proviso that I've got a bit more graft to do after moving in than I would otherwise. Fine. Just got to walk into these things with eyes open.

Flats can force their freeholder to sell (or take up the right to first refusal); houses can't.

Ah, no. Definitely no. Not even close to being a yes.

Houses have no right to first refusal on the freehold. Flats do. The laws are different.

Freeholders may need to be reasonable in some (many) circumstances, but there are certain areas where they don't, and lease extensions and freehold purchases are one. Broadly leaseholders have rights to extend or buy the freehold. Reasonableness does not come into it.

It does if the freeholder has refused to extend the lease and been taken to first tier tribunal, which is what I was suggesting.

Indeed, I am well aware of Part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and the differences between the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. However, your assertion that leasehold owners of houses have no right to acquire the freehold is simply wrong.

Yes, I meant house owners had no legal right to acquire the freehold under right to first refusal, whereas flat owners do. I wasn't clear, I'll admit that, but there's no need to be a dick about it.

Definitely not too petty, I totally agree with you and if getting involved in this stuff has taught me anything, it's that thoroughness is important. I think we just have different understanding of the root issue (which isn't super clear from the story). In your view:

There has been no refusal to extend the lease there has simply been a disagreement on the premium to be paid.

But my understanding was:

"The trust will not grant an extension or sell the freeholds"

I may be oversimplifying but to me that's a refusal to extend / enfranchise, which is a potential breach, and any refusal to follow the law (or disagreement over what constitutes the law) should per my understanding go to the Tribunal for resolution. And that's when the trust would do well to be reasonable - which they don't seem to be being at the moment.

Tho I may have missed some of the subsequent posts (flying about a bit this weekend) so may be missing some nuance.

Not sure this is useful in any way, but I've read that ALL sales on the Corbett Estate back around 1900 were leasehold.

Some now have freehold, as owners have bought and attached them, while others are still left as loose ends. You can find mention of it in historical websites about Catford. The original asking prices are in there too, which is fun.

^^^word. I think we're on the same page for this one now. I also share your frustration about how unclear the story is. I'm on a few leasehold forums and the amount of people who read a story like this and immediately conclude MY HOUSE IS UNSELLABLE AND I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT is upsetting.

Anyone had those new smart meters fitted?
Got a letter saying they could be fitted in my flat (ex council), arranged appointment, gas man came round this morning to say it could be done, but would take about 3 hours and had and electric would have to be turned off for the duration.
Which is fine, except when I made the booking no one mentioned it at all.

Is getting smart meters installed worth the mornings worth of hassle? Or is it another way for big gas/electric consortiums to get more usage consumption data to force you to pay more? (only slightly joking)

Thought the point was that you pay less? You only pay for what you use, rather than being lumped in with people who waste stuff. We got a water meter fitted for this reason and it saved us a lot of money since they were grouping us based on property costs which meant we were effectively paying for a whole bunch of people using water rather than just the two of us. Gas I'm not sure but so long as you only ever pay for what YOU use I'd defo prefer that over communal billing.
Doesn't it also mean they don't need to come into your house to read meters?

Gas and electricity is different to water. With energy, you will only pay what you use. Smart meters just make it easier for the suppliers to get accurate readings while also giving users a granular break down of energy use.
I've held off on a smart meter for the time being. I think different suppliers are using different smart meter technology which can cause problems if you're trying to switch. I'm waiting for some sort of industry standard

Industry standard.......lolz!

yep, could be waiting a while!

I only pay for what I use with water now too, so if you're in a flat and haven't moved to a meter, have a think about that too.

We have a smart meter. A bit miffed simply because it should allow you to bill in arrears, accurately. But for some reason the fecking supplier keeps trying to up our DD despite the fact that they know how much we are using and are always in credit.

Smart meter. Same stupid utility companies who want to use your cash to pump up their balance sheets.

Final Notice or GTFO >>>

Smart meters here, although the gas meter is too far away from the electricity meter to talk to it (only the electricity meter does the data upload), so we have to do manual gas meter readings (which is even more convoluted as you need to press a button to get the reading rather than just read it).

They knew all of this before they were fitting the meter but still went ahead with it.

Their argument is that they want to keep your DDs roughly level throughout the year, so people don't get a shock in the winter when they start using 3x as much energy.

Of course, their calculations aren't perfect and so they accidentally end up sitting on millions.

Why implement smart meters if you aren't going to couple that to billing in arrears?

Part of the argument for SM is that they ensure accurate readings. So with accurate readings, why are they using estimates and flat rate DD?

They know what I have used, bill me accordingly. That is how every other bill I have tends to work (phone, pay TV, credit cards, etc.) It's not hard.

They know what I have used, bill me accordingly.

But then they don't know when they are gonna get teh monies.

phone, pay TV, credit cards, etc.

I'm not sure a gas / leccy provider can shut down the pipe if you don't pay, unlike mobile, tv providers etc.

OK, they can, but it's a last resort thing.

But then they don't know when they are gonna get teh monies.

They have my DD info so that argument falls flat.

I'm not sure a gas / leccy provider can shut down the pipe if you don't pay, unlike mobile, tv providers etc.

Make it a condition of signing up. I recognise that not all people will be happy with that arrangement but I am. I have yet to leave a property where the utility does not owe me money. Often in excess of £500. So their estimates are shit - even when you constantly update them with readings. Fuck that. I am not a bank and I am not lending them money.

Heard anything on this yet?

Aroogah for prez