Buyers have themselves to blame, not solicitors, over leaseholds, say conveyancers – Legal Futures
Conveyancers have hit back at suggestions they should have prevented the scandal of new homes being sold as leasehold properties with rapidly escalating ground rents, which the government announced plans to ban last week. Rob Hailstone, chief executive and founder of the Bold Legal Group (BLG), which represents some 650 conveyancing firms, said many buyers would not have acted on warnings given about rent increases.
Solicitors recommended by the housebuilders – “approved solicitors” in the case of Countryside Properties plc – were not stooges, says Rob Hailstone, founder of the conveyancers the Bold Legal Group.
And buyers would not have paid any attention to ground rent clauses even if solicitors had pointed them out.
Rob Hailstone is quoted by Legal Futures:
“Most, if not all, solicitors and conveyancers would have spotted the rent increase clause in a lease and would have pointed it out to their buying client and any mortgage provider, along with a lot of other important issues.”
“The sad fact is that in many cases, their buying client will not read or act upon the advice given,” Rob Hailstone adds.
“Most buyers will want to proceed, understandably, with their purchase as quickly as possible, head down and with rose-tinted glasses on.”
But Rob Hailstone adds:
“I accept if the rent increase clause was not spotted and highlighted, the solicitor/conveyancer in question may be at fault.”
As for the consequences of buying a property that might subsequently prove unsellable owing to the ground rent terms:
“Solicitors are not valuers, estate agents, or mortgage providers – their clients can calculate [themselves] as to what the future rent might be.”
Rob Hailstone represents some 650 conveyancing firms in the Bold Legal Group.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders handbook at 5.14.9 says:
“We have no objection to a lease which contains provision for a periodic increase of the ground rent provided that the amount of the increased ground rent is fixed or can be readily established and is reasonable.
“If you consider any increase in the ground rent may materially affect the value of the property, you must report this to us.”
Bold Legal Group is a trade association and Rob represents a lot of the smaller High Street firms as well as some of the market leaders.
Beth Rudolph of the Conveyancing Association said: “The CA view is that a conveyancer is duty bound to act in the best interests of the client and report to them anything that would be considered in conflict with their interests at that time.
“If they don’t achieve that then they are open to complaint from their customer either via their own complaints process, the Legal Ombudsman or their Regulator. There is plenty of customer protection available if the conveyancer fails in that duty.”
Mortgage lenders and conveyancers lay bare the rot of leasehold to MPs
“It would be a much better position if there were no onerous lease terms in the first place to be advised upon by the conveyancer, estate agent, marketing office or valuer.
“These onerous terms should simply not exist, particularly where there is the opportunity for abuse of the control which the developers have in this restricted market place.
“They should be offering leases that offer a balance of burden and benefit to the consumer that is fair.
“The balance has now shifted significantly in favour of the freeholder in these leases with onerous lease terms and we need to ensure that DCLG get that message through the responses to consultation and are not given the impression that they can solve the problem by relying on consumer protection that already exists.”
Related posts:
Sky told ground rent scams were ‘a bit more cash’ for beleaguered housebuilders
‘New-build ground rent scandal could spark legal battles,’ says Guardian
Taylor Wimpey rejects responsibility to resale buyers facing doubling ground rents
Taylor Wimpey ground rent explanation ‘not true’, BBC is told
Bannister Preston and Cohen Filippini Solicitors ‘errors’ over ground rents, says BBC
Savills and Allsops: Why ground rents from people’s home are just so ‘attractive’
Should be fairly easy to assess what level of advice was given by a solicitor/conveyancer: they ought to have provided a ‘report on title’ which is presented to the buyer prior to exchange of contracts. Any conditions that the solicitor might consider pertinent, unusual or onerous should be highlighted. The report should be delivered both verbally and in writing to ensure the client understands what they are signing up to.
The absence of such a report is, in my view, a failure of duty of care.
Doh! That explains everything.
Of course the solicitors acting on the behalf of Estate agents are going to advise on not purchasing an onerous leasehold flat. Miss the commission from the sale?! I think not. Such arrogance from the man.
Quite an extraordinary defence!
I didn’t give them the change they might have expected because they wouldn’t / couldn’t / never counted their change your honour. I thought they could afford it. Besides, everyone else was doing it. It’s just commission innit? Lovely jubbly.
Consider, in contrast: recently I decided that I wished to withdraw some money from a pension scheme I contributed to for a few years a long time ago. The total value of it amounts to rather less than the price of a car and is not an important part of my retirement planning. I thought I could liquidate some of it easily. I couldn’t have been more wrong.
To make a long story short, the range of measures to protect me from the possibility that I might be stupid, ignorant, illiterate, innumerate, gullible, vulnerable etc. and taken advantage of were astonishing — to the point of monstrous inefficiency and annoyance (recorded phone calls and all the rest).. And the potential loss: a fraction of what leasehold has cost many people.
What explains the difference between the licence to steal that is effectively and knowingly granted to those in the leasehold business and the “red tape” when it comes to pensions and accessing one’s OWN MONEY?
It surely couldn’t be that there is a profitable industry of plutocrats’ lapdogs who do very well on the scraps from their master’s tables could it? More than a few, I’d imagine, think “I’ll have some of that” when they discover what a successful racket it is.
What chance of an inquiry into conflict of interest in the professions responsible for this?
In America, we know, that drugs and treatments are commonly prescribed on the basis of what earns the most money. As result of this conflict of interest America has the world’s most expensive and the worst value for money healthcare in the developed world. Despite having good doctors and hospitals etc. it ends up with a dog-eat-dog, devil-take-hindmost society, so different from the values celebrated so magnificently in the opening ceremony of the last olympics.
In England and Wales conflict of interest lies at the heart of leasehold. It’s undoubtedly the worst form of property tenure and the developed world. Mrs Thatcher herself said that there was no prouder word in the country’s history than freeholder, and there is no doubt she wished everybody should be a freeholder. Today, despite the rhetoric about the country that works for the many not the selected few, the fact is that vested interests have corrupted politics and successfully preyed on the many, and in few areas more successfully than leasehold property. They give large amounts of money and procure the results the action or inaction required to preserve and increase their wealth. We even hear talk of their human rights on occasion!
That’s right. The human rights of predators who have profited by exploiting others by deception, who have profited from favourable policies they have procured, and who, in many cases, avoid paying their dues to society by arranging to charge themselves high levels of interest on loans from companies they control in offshore tax havens (to eliminate or reduce any profits and tax liabilities)..
Social consent for this kind of behaviour and for those who enable it will end. All that is uncertain is whether it will end peacefully. The “Bold” statement is indeed bold. Provocative even.
It will probably fall on deaf ears but I repeat: “I accept if the rent increase clause was not spotted and highlighted, the solicitor/conveyancer in question may be at fault.”
Rob, you say “I accept if the ground rent increase clause was not spotted and highlighted the solicitor/conveyancer in question may be at fault”
Who other than the solicitor/conveyancer could have been at fault?
Whilst it might be reasonable for a solicitor/conveyancer not to tell a purchaser (with no legal training) that they should not buy the property, would you agree that it is unreasonable if the solicitor/conveyancer does not point out the effect of the ground rent increase terms? May I also ask if you have ever come across a single case where a solicitor/conveyancer was recommended by a developer in which the solicitor/conveyancer made the purchaser aware of the onerous terms of the lease ie bringing to the attention of the purchaser the effect of the terms?
Do you agree that a solicitor/conveyancer ha a prime duty of care to their client?
My ears aren’t “deaf” Rob but I think that you have shown your own slip and the synthetic (cheap)
frilly slips of the rackety solicitors who have let their clients down. I certainly am aware that there is an ABUNDANCE of crooked conveyancing solicitors out there on the prairie willing to take a shilling and turn a blind eye- I could name them ……..- The party is over Rob……Leaseholders have shaken off their chains and risen like lions from slumber. Got it? You were very badly advised to give such a patronising interview. Do you employ the same PR puff as Roger Southam per chance? Big mistake sweet pea!!
Kim,
If there is an ABUNDANCE of crooked conveyancing solicitors out there, once that has been proven, they should be named, shamed and dealt with accordingly and if it is established that there are any “crooked conveyancing solicitors” who are members of the Bold Legal Group their membership will be terminated immediately.
I was not advised by anyone (nor do I employ PR puff), it wasn’t an interview, and until 30 minutes ago had no idea who Roger Southam was/is.
I never used the words: Buyers have themselves to blame, not solicitors, nor the word stooges.
The full extent of the text I sent to Legal Futures is set out below. Not all of it has been used.
“Most (if not all) solicitors and conveyancers would have ‘spotted’ the rent increase clause in a lease and would have pointed it out to their buying client and any mortgage provider, along with a lot of other important issues. The sad fact is that in many cases, their buying client will not read or act upon the advice given. Most buyers will want to proceed, understandably, with their purchase as quickly as possible, head down and with rose tinted glasses on. Solicitors are not valuers, estate agents, or mortgage providers, their clients can calculate as easily or as difficultly as they can as to what the future rent might be.
This issue raises the bigger issue of home buyers not fully appreciating what their conveyancer or solicitor is doing for them, protecting their best interests. The moral of the tale is, when your solicitor sends you something to read, read it, and if you don’t understand it, talk to them. If they can’t provide the further advice you then need they will advise you who can.
Having said the above, I accept if the rent increase clause was not ‘spotted’ and highlighted, the solicitor/conveyancer in question may be at fault.”
When I reported on a lease for my clients, and if they were unable to come to my office, I would send them a copy of the relevant pages (i.e. a copy of the rights, restrictions and covenants etc) with the most important clauses highlighted by a marker pen. I would also report on the term of the lease, the rent and any rent increase provisions. If there were any clauses or provisions I felt were unreasonable or unclear I would mention them in particular to my client and any mortgage provider involved and offer further help or advice.
My ‘rule of thumb’ was, if I wouldn’t buy a particular property because of any legal issues I would advise my client not to buy it. In short if it wasn’t good enough for me, it probably wasn’t good enough for my client.
I am not, and never have been, unsympathetic to anyone who has purchased a duff lease because of duff advice.
The way properties are bought and sold needs improving and, thankfully, steps are being taken for that to happen.
I will end my written contribution to this debate now. A better way forward would be by way of a well chaired, civilised, roundtable discussion.
Rob
I have read your piece sent to ‘Legal futures’ and it appears to me that you constantly blame the prospective buyer for the negligence,venality or naked bentness of the solicitors who neglected to point out the onerous ground rent clause. You say that (in paraphrase )”clients will not listen or act upon advice”. Where is your evidence? – “Buyers not fully appreciating what the solicitors are doing for them”. Rob , the buyer is paying the so called ‘expert’ solicitor to do their job, do they expect flowers and a few Hail Marys thrown in too? “Buyers have their heads down whilst wearing rose tinted glasses and that they should be able to calculate what any future ground rent should be”. I could go on. Shocking piece Rob, which I believe just underlines how little Leaseholders et al are regarded by so called ‘professionals’ in the rackety property mileu. Incidentally, your ‘rule of thumb’ remark is most telling, you say that if a “Property is not good enough for you then it is probably not good enough your client “.. “PROBABLY”? Says it all really Rob.!
Probably Kim, because ultimately it was my client’s decision whether or not to proceed, not mine. I could only advise, not dictate to my clients. Thankfully, if I used the phrase, ‘personally, I wouldn’t touch this property withy a barge pole’, and because they trusted me 100%, in the majority of cases, they would not proceed.
Hi Rob,
I thought I’d send you my experience of using a developers recommended solicitor.
First of all even though they were based in the city centre where I lived the only time they wanted to see me face to face was when they wanted their cheque for services, approx 2 days before completion.
Everything else was done via mail& phone with things sent to me with sign this written on back pages etc.
Now don’t get me wrong, as a first-time buyer I admit the crime of being inexperienced in the art of property buying and without doubt I’ll admit my wife & I did have “rose tinted” glasses on. Afterall we were exited to buy our first home, but I would have expected my solicitor to be pragmatic and treat this purely as a business transaction between their client ( IE me not the developer) and another party.
I do admit when the lease came through I did place a call asking what it all meant.
Their response was don’t worry it’s just to keep the estate in good order, and stops people having things like sky dishes etc on the front of the house, also no parking of commercial vehicles on drives.
They thought it was innocuous, but being a contractor who drives a commercial vehicle, I raised a concern & the solicitor sought permission to park my works van.
I only found this out through questioning though. Having retrospectively inspected my report on title I’ve found the initial rent, the review & the escalator spread over three pages not written in a different font, or highlighted I might add, so it catches your eye, and in a language I think only klingons would understand not a lay person at law.
Is this done deliberately by solicitors & conveyancers?
I was also advised nothing verbally when we had the conversation about the a lease, with regards to any long-term financial implications of the lease.
Believe me a ground rent that doubled every 10 years would’ve been a bigger red flag than whether I could park a commercial vehicle on my new tarmaced drive.
Now, I accept you might be reading this thinking – well, you got a copy of the lease more fool you for not reading it – but let me put it another way: if I came to your house to provide a you with a technical service, say installation of solar panels with invertors and controllers and relay coils and so on and so forth.
I’m sure after paying for that service you’d be a little miffed if I just left you the manual and walked away, leaving you scratching your head about what it all meant?
Incidentally, when I asked jokingly about not paying the £175.00 per annum (that’s what I thought it would be forever) for as long as I owned the property, the solicitor told me you could buy the freehold, but it’s not worth it & they wouldn’t recommend it as it would cost you more than 20 years rent.
Now, I’ll agree with you there, I wish I’d ignored that advice!
Oh, BTW, it’s no coincidence that three people on my estate did push to and did purchase the freehold at the point of sale, and it’s telling that in all three cases the buyers used a solicitor independent of the developers recommendation. Their solicitors did tell them about the rent reviews and escalators.
My solicitor sold 47 properties on my estate compared to the three independent solicitors, yet they found it & reported it explicitly but mine didn’t, or to any of the 47 clients. I wonder why?
Ultimately, Rob, I don’t think I’m at fault here. Nor do I think the other people on the end of this shafting are either.
It might be tough to accept, but perhaps the legal profession has been corrupted by developers and is getting members of your profession to turn a blind eye about these clauses in the hope of continuing with their retainers with said developers, who let’s face it throw a lot of work their way.
Now having said that, should that accusation be proved correct in the coming months and years, I would expect other members of your profession not to be blaming the victims in this mess, but to use their positions and trade bodies to get rid of these bad eggs.
Attaboy ‘Doubler’. Excellent post. Let’s hope Rob at founder of ( BLG) has been given food for thought! It is my belief that there are more bent solicitors operating in the hustling property mileu than there are fish in the sea. They know who they are…
Doubler,
That’s pretty much word for word what happened with myself and the other purchasers of the flats in our block.
The only addition was that by the time the lease agreement had arrived with the “sign where the stickers are” I was £2k in the hole through upfront fees from not only the developer but also the estate agent and the solicitors acting on the estate agents behalf.
During the initial visit to the building site I asked on numerous occasions what the service charge and ground rent was going to be. By both the developer and estate agent I was “advised” it won’t be much, well about £150 p/a for the groundrent and 1/36 of the total service charge. Only just after completion did I find out that the doubling my onerous ground rent terms are viewed as a very bad situation to find yourself in. The Kaleidoscope development where this all kicked off from is only 2mins down the road from me.
Quality solicitors Talbots, yes I’m naming you in this mess. I really hope that you are starting to twitch with media storm this is creating.
Rob, I don’t know much about the Bold Legal Group, but come off it?
You hadn’t heard of Roger Southam? Doesn’t say much for Bold Legal Group does it?
That’s what I though Mr Epstein. I mean hadn’t he heard of ‘LEASE’ That bastion of Leaseholders welfare ???
I think it is commendable that Rob tried to explain what was written in Legal Futures on this site.
I think he is absolutely sincere in his account of his experiences, and his view of many other conveyancing solicitors.
But this could be based on the far larger resale conveyancing market, rather than on the conveyancing of new-build estates or flats by plc housebuilders.
As a law firm, this is a dream client and a lot of business. From one source. With pressure to complete quickly.
I am afraid I think that many individual conveyancers dealing with these transactions either 1/ Did not appreciate the implications of the ground rents (neither did lenders and others: all wanting this business to keep on throbbing). 2/ Did know the implications of the ground rents, knew these purchases were appalling, and kept quiet.
It would be a brave junior solicitor to tell the boss: we are helping this plc housebuilder sell flawed products.
I am always impressed by a professional who defends a position somewhere they have no obligation to so do.
I am also reminded of an irony. A few days ago a query came up in another place and the relevant bit was:-
“{Freeholder} has come up with reasonable price for the premium to extend to 125 years from now but wants to double the ground rent every 25 years (from £80 to £160 p/a initially). My solicitor has said the fact that the ground rent is due to double every twenty five years could be deemed “onerous.”
The solicitor suggested the s42 route to peppercorn.
I applaud the s42 advice – a rare gem – but £80 doubling every 25 yrs is not, relatively speaking, an onerous ground rent surely? (Well within the Nationwide’s new criteria of <=15 years assuming the lease was worth £80K).
Depending on the term left as to actual money paid, it is x2 more onerous than £80 doubling every 33 yrs. On the other hand it is x19.5 less onerous than the now notorious doubling every ten yrs.
RPI indexing could be better or worse than doubling in the same intervals. That is the problem with comparing apples with pears.
It's that word 'doubling' which is now scaring the horses. Presumably because the professionals are jumping from one easy rule to another? Ground rents up to the recent scandal were fine at any rate whatsover.
That's the problem…no moral compass let alone a legal one.
I have gained, perhaps unfairly, the impression that conveyancing solicitors do not understand leases in general or ground rents in particular?
No residential lease should ethically be capable of advising positively to a client in the current state of law. Not without a lot of new legal underpinning. This is long before advising on the esoteric clauses that keep barristers in business arguing how many camels "in any view" could fit on this or that pin.
Imagine a day when leasehold – if not abolished – came with clear legal rights and definitions of what is not acceptable?
Too much fettering of capitalism?
At least imagine if law defined an onerous ground rent in precise relation to the capitalisation formula (with a standard yield) and voided any that did not fit – reverting the miscreant contract to peppercorn as punishment?
I heard once, might have been fake news, that commonly legal practices stick their juniors on conveyancing. I'd say you'd best have a QC to look over a lease.
Many years ago my experience of buying my now miserly value lease was of being called into my conveyancer's office at the last minute to sign the exchange stuff and being shown the lease:
"Pretty standard for a lease" was all that was said. Quite.
Mind, I was fortunate regarding its old fashioned 33 yr fixed doubling,even if it had started at 0.2%, which would now fall foul of at least Nationwide.
Paddy it was not fake news- many rackety legal practices do stick their juniors on conveyancing and their thick as mince juniors at that. ( believe me there are many) They do not charge amateur hour rates though! A dear friend who is an emminent QC has always told me to believe nothing of what I hear and only half of what I see when dealing with coneyancing solicitors. Sage advice!
In 1999 we bought our leasehold flat through a conveyancing solicitor recommended by the estate agent. There were just 63 years left at the time but we were never advised this was a problem except you would probably not get a mortgage if it fell below 50 years. Neither were we told the cost of extending the lease would increase dramatically as the years decreased!! We were told we had to wait 2 years before we could extend and that the property would revert to the freeholder if the lease ran out (when I asked the questions!)
We had lived in a leasehold house prior to this which had never been a problem and we bought the freehold for £2,000 before selling. Consequently we did not expect our leasehold flat to be a problem either. BOY HOW WRONG CAN YOU BE!!!!!!
Yes Rob we may have still purchased through rose coloured specs or rather been drawn by the lovely sea views BUT that does not excuse the fact we have been lied to or rather had the truth concealed as to the real horrors of living in leasehold!!! Having now acquired the Right to Manage I have dealt with many conveyancing solicitors and quite frankly they have all been pretty useless in that most of the problems have come from them NOT the buyers, sellers or ourselves in dealing with the sales!!!
P. 61 ( Debate) DAILY MAIL 3rd August-
“SOLICITORS and conveyancers do alert their clients and mortgage providers to ground rent increase clauses in the lease ( letters) – which could mean it doubles every ten years. However, in many cases , the homebuyer is wearing rise- tinted glasses and will not read or act upon advice. Most want to move in to their new home as quickly as possible. It is not the solicitors fault if buyers do not calculate what the future ground rent might be”
R.HAILSTONE , Teignmouth, Devon.
Is the the very same R Hailstone founder of ‘BLG’? Cor he ain’t half shown his pantaloons if it is!! iCloud.com
The root of the problem with onerous ground rents is that in many cases the terms were not made clear and that in certain cases it is clear that terms were pushed through with the use of solicitors not necessarily acting in the best interests of their client
Ground rents at the turn of the 20th Century were often about a weeks pay for an average person living in the property. Almost without exception they were fixed. They were not peppercorns when the rent is compared to average earnings
Inflation in the 1970’s was addressed by having rents doubling every 25/33 years. But such estimates were wild guesses. Now that inflation is very low (although rising at the moment) allied with a complete collapse in interest rates these wild guesses as to future inflation could cause rents in the future to become onerous.and expensive to buy out. The outlook for long term employment is not great with increasing automation of jobs and pressure from developing countries to undercut wage levels. It is possible that we may have deflation making these fixed and rising rents a greater issue.
Therefore to address the problems of inflation from both the landlords and tenants perspective would be, as the Nationwide have suggested, is to have it linked to the RPI so that it moves up or down depending on the level of inflation. Probably far better would be to have the rent linked to average earnings to ensure that throughout the term the rent never becomes onerous from the tenants point of view. The are various statistics published by the Office for National Statistics to help in this regard. Alternatively, particularly on retirement blocks, perhaps linked to rises and falls in the state pension.
Since about 2005 every lease has to have at the start prescribed clauses, which summaries key points such as the premium and the term
It is a pity that the ground rent terms were not required to be disclosed as one of the prescribed clauses perhaps box LR6.1 could have been created
It would also have helped if the Net Present Value of the ground rent was calculated using a set capitalization rate – then a ground rent of £250 that doubled every 10 years for the first six anniversaries would be worth around £23,000 if a rate of 6% was used and then the cat would probably be out of the bag. Therefore the total price paid for the flat would have been the premium plus the rent and if stamp duty was applied to both then it would ensure that minds were focused on the total being paid for the flat
This would be a very simple amendment to make to all new leases being granted going forward and the government could easily have on their website a tool to help calculate the NPV
The issues of consent fees, deeds of covenant, and transfer fees could be quickly and easily dealt with by having prescribed fees.
Legislation should be passed to enables lessee to reduce the ground rent to nil and if this claim was made it would not require a surveyor because all that needs to be valued is the rent. The government could stipulate the capitalization rate and the expected inflation rate and could also produce an online calculator to value the stream of income. The lessee could then serve a relatively simple notice on the landlord requesting the reduction in the rent and sending the premium initially to an escrow account , possibly an agency of the government. If the landlord objects there is a hearing and if the calculated figure is correct then the landlord pays all the costs and visa versa. If accepted the monies held is paid to the landlord and an entry made at the Land Registry confirming the rent is now a peppercorn
Simple victim-blaming
I posted this on the Legal Futures website in response to Rob Hailstone’s comments, but it may be of interest here:
“As a retired solicitor myself I think Mr Hailstone is totally missing the point – that most of these scandalous cases involve solicitors that were recommended by the builders.
The reality is that such solicitors are far more worried about keeping the builders happy than their real clients. They need the cash flow that the referrals produce, and are never going to bite the hand that feeds them.
This shameful practice should long since have been prohibited by the SRA, as it’s frankly difficult to imagine a more blatant conflict of interest.
It’s also silly and extremely patronising to imply that clients are stupid and that they would go ahead against specific advice not to do so. I acted for several buyers in this type of situation (having never been recommended by builders!) and the clients did withdraw or, in some (admittedly rare) occasions, we managed to renegotiate the terms of the lease to produce something acceptable.
Another serious problem is that because of the race to the bottom that’s taken place in conveyancing over the past 10 – 20 years most conveyancing is NOT carried out by solicitors. The `conveyancer’ may be employed by a firm of solicitors but will very often not be qualified in any way, shape or form.
Through ignorance and inexperience they are simply unable to identify a problem such as this, and although they are nominally supervised by a qualified person such supervision is often purely theoretical, so they’re left entirely to their own devices.”
” that most of these scandalous cases involve solicitors that were recommended by the builders.”
Hi, not necessarily, I deliberately took an independent solicitor myself. When I purchased my flat and asked about the ground rent (I checked my leasehold documents many times thoroughly) he simply replied “oh yes, I forgot”. When I presented my problem to Birchall & Blackburn – their reply was “you were properly informed…”. At no time in the process did I sit with my solicitor and talk about the terms of the leasehold, nor was I shown the statement that ground rent doubles every 10 years. The only statement that exists is “ground rent doubles”.
Banks are also using conveyancing firms. How is it possible that twice they missed the lease terms? First Halifax – who provided my mortgage, then 3-4 years later Barclays when I re-mortgaged?
“And buyers would not have paid any attention to ground rent clauses even if solicitors had pointed them out.”
Excuse me, I read all the terms and conditions from TOP TO BOTTOM while purchasing. Even now 10 years later I read all my documents again. I knew I was buying a flat and some form of leasehold would apply. In my clauses only once does it say “Ground rent is set to double”. IT DOES NOT SAY EVERY 10 YEARS. We are not blind, we are not stupid, we can all read and count. That is what the statement suggests. If the lease clauses would show the schedule of ground rent like in a spreadsheet people would realize the catch. The majority of conveyancers would simply say “normal practice” . In fact there does not appear any standard of how the terms are presented, many people seem to have clauses like that presented as small print and in legal jargon that no human being can understand.