• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • JB Leitch
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • JB Leitch
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / News / Retirement / Family outraged by £50,000 exit fee on sale at Retirement Villages’ Mayford Grange

Family outraged by £50,000 exit fee on sale at Retirement Villages’ Mayford Grange

January 7, 2019 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

Yet again retirement housing is in the news: this time Retirement Villages charging £50,000 in exit fees to a family who sold a two-bedroom flat at Mayford Grange, in Woking in Surrey.

The Sunday Times ran the story yesterday, although Retirement Villages, which is a member of the Association of Retirement Community Operators, makes its exit fees, which can be as high as 12.5%, clear on its website.

Nonetheless, the family of Hannah Stuart are indignant. She paid £380,000 for a two-bedroom flat at Mayford Grange in 2010.

They sold it for £425,000, which means that they walked away with a monetary loss of only £5,000. This is not that bad in retirement housing, where resale prices can be catastrophic.

The issue is discussed on www.BetterRetirementHousing.com here:

Family outraged by £50,000 exit fee at Retirement Villages’ Mayford Grange – Better Retirement Housing

But a cash loss from purchase of only £5,000 is not THAT bad, in UK retirement housing … By Sebastian O’Kelly Yet again retirement housing is in the news: this time Retirement Villages charging £50,000 in exit fees to a family who sold a two-bedroom flat at Mayford Grange, in Woking in Surrey.

Related posts:

Housing minister urges transparency over retirement exit fees Cherry Trees retirement flat hit by £9,341 sinking fund exit fee .. Default ThumbnailHeirs of empty retirement leasehold flat now face doubled council taxes … on top of plummeting re-sale value, on-going service charges and an exit fee if it ever does sell Default ThumbnailOFT cuts deal with Tchenguiz on leasehold retirement sub-letting fees, but exit fees on sale still stand The Times: ‘Exit fees and poor resale values: the uncomfortable truth about retirement homes’

Category: Latest News, News, Press, RetirementTag: ARCO, Mayford Grange, Retirement villages

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (45) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (42) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (67) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (201) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Housebuilders sitting on 600,000 plots of land, while taxpayers pour in billions through Help To Buy
Next Post: New interim chair for troubled quango LEASE »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Chris

    January 7, 2019 at 8:08 pm

    Wrong headline.
    “Retirement flat miraculously only loses £5,000 on re-sale”

  2. Stephen

    January 9, 2019 at 11:49 am

    Whether the exit fees go to the freehokderbir service charge fund is not the issue .

    Provided it is made patently clear what the formula is for calculating the exit charge before the lessee contracts to purchase the lease then it is reasonable to assume that the burden of this commitement is reflected in the price paid .

    It is acknowledged it was made clear what the charge would be

    Bleating about such an exit charge now undermines the campaign for leasehold reform on other matters where abuse has taken place and legislation is required

    • admin

      January 9, 2019 at 12:00 pm

      No. It is essential that defined services are specified in the lease to as great a degree as possible and that monies are raised to pay for them.

      Otherwise services you think you are paying for, with annual service charges or the exit fees, might be – and have been – reduced.

      Retirement community operators are complicated service businesses, where the units are, to date, sold as leases.

      Hard luck for leasehold sector insiders, that the trade body representing them, the Association of Retirement Community Operators (ARCO), says there is no place for ground rents in retirement or any other housing.

      The membership includes rather more socially inclined members than the standard house builders, thankfully.

      ARCO snubs McCarthy and Stone / Churchill by saying there is no need for ground rents – Better Retirement Housing

      The trade body the Association of Retirement Community Operators announced yesterday that ground rents are “not essential” in retirement housing and it backs the government in ending them. The announcement directly contradicts McCarthy and Stone and Churchill. Both have argued that they need ground rents for the viability of retirement housing projects and without them …

      • Stephen

        January 9, 2019 at 2:01 pm

        You have changed the argument to ground rents. The discussion was on the matter of exit fees.

        In any event if the value of the ground rent is calculated using a defined discount rate set by the government the purchaser can decide whether the premium for the lease and the NPV of the ground rent makes for an acceptable deal.

        Exit fees and ground rents have a place provided they a clearly set out and valued in the terms of the lease . The 19 year doublers got through because of the value of that obligation was not disclosed . If the value of 10 year doublers was discounted using a defined discount rate and shown next to the premium in Box LR7 they would have been rejected by the purchaser or a substantial reduction made in the premium

        • admin

          January 9, 2019 at 3:10 pm

          Address the event fees issue: it is surely good that services are defined and monies allocated, rather than simply going to the freeholder to spend as he wishes?

          • Stephen

            January 9, 2019 at 5:57 pm

            If the event fee goes straight to the freeholder – that is not a problem PROVIDED it is clearly disclosed in the lease so that a proposed purchaser can take advice on its implications when making an offer

  3. Michael Epstein

    January 9, 2019 at 8:24 pm

    Stephen,
    I am going to come round to your house, break in and take all your possessions. I will then go to your bank and take all the money out of your account.
    Since I have disclosed this to you, and you are now fully aware of this, does that make it right?

    • Stephen

      January 9, 2019 at 9:09 pm

      The anolgy is clearly wrong

      You are proposing to take steps which are clearly illegal and trying to argue they will not be illegal as it is disclosed in advance

      In the case of the granting of a lease you are offered terms all of which are legal

      I fail to see the comparison

      • Michael Hollands

        January 10, 2019 at 12:43 pm

        I agree with Stephen, they are both robbery but one of them is legal.

  4. Michael Epstein

    January 10, 2019 at 4:17 pm

    Stephen, Tis still the season of goodwill. As such I wrote my last post so that finally after all your postings someone, somewhere might agree with you!
    How does it feel?

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web