The owner of a Taylor Wimpey flat at Ausden Place in Watford paid the freeholder £14,000 to change her doubling ground rent terms to RPI.
The property owner, who prefers to remain unnamed, had to sell her flat because of family circumstances.
She could not wait to discover the outcome of Taylor Wimpey’s ground rent review assistance scheme – which is doing the barest minimum to resolve this crisis.
Now that she has sold her flat, it is an open question whether Taylor Wimpey will repay her £14,000 she had to spend to make good the housebuilder’s toxic lease.
Yesterday she contacted Sir Peter Bottomley and Watford MP Richard Harrington.
The buyer bought the flat using Taylor Wimpey’s recommended solicitors at Ausden Place in £2012 for £207,000, although the lease
She secured a buyer in October 2016, and contacted LKP during the winter, explaining that family circumstances meant that she had to sell as soon as possible.
In February the buyer’s mortgage lender Halifax withdrew its mortgage offer owing to the doubling ground rent terms. The flat owner says: “All other lenders refused to offer a mortgage as well.”
This led her to pay out £14,000 to the freeholder Sandhall Limited, which is administered by Vincent Tchenguiz’s Estates and Management.
The beneficial ownership of the freehold is unknown. LKP would appreciate further information on this.
In the end, the flat sold for £329,000, so the buyer – who had bought during the market doldrums of 2012 – came out with a profit.
But the fact that she had to vary a lease – that Taylor Wimpey in its greed had made completely unmortgeable – has left her £14,000 out of pocket.
Related posts:
Pensioner paid £38,000 for Taylor Wimpey freehold to ground rent speculators E&J Capital Partners
Taylor Wimpey CEO says doubling ground rent scandal under ‘review’. But Bottomley asks: ‘Have innocent homebuyers been shafted?’
Pete Redfern tells LKP how Taylor Wimpey will sort the ground rent scandal
Taylor Wimpey ground rent explanation ‘not true’, BBC is told
Taylor Wimpey more greedy than the ground rent ‘Mr Smallweeds’ (and so are other plc housebuilders)
Signal Building leaseholders told to sell flats back to Southwark council
As the TW compensation scheme is designed to help the Doublers make their properties saleable the this is an obvious case for compensation. As it has shown that only by converting to RPI that it has been possible to sell.
But the fact that the property has then been sold at such a huge profit with RPI will not help those who are campaigning for the RPI’s to be included in the TW compensation scheme.
The profits are there to buy the next property so the seller is worse of by £14,000 to us the next property
I agree with both Michael H and Shilu.
As MH say’s it may not help those who are campaigning for RPI to be included in compensation but, is this really a typical example regarding “profit”.
I live on the outskirts of Coventry in the midlands and a typical £200K property in 2012 would be around £230K/£240K in Oct 2016. Go far further north and it will increase even less and that’s where people have been really hurt with these onerous leases.
And yes, Shilu is also right, if the seller in Watford wanted to purchase like for like he/she would be £14K short due to having to pay the freeholder.
The problem is whatever you have to pay to get out of an onerous lease creates a “shortfall” against another purchase in any part of the country
Given that a lease is a contract between parties…that is its point – to assign demised rights to a party called a leaseholder – how can a lease start years before there is an assignment?
Could you lease a car and find that lease started when the car rolled out of the factory?
A contract doesn’t start until both parties sign, surely?
Otherwise you might find you were married long before the wedding!
How be this?
I am referring to the first assignment. My lease started when it was signed by the first leaseholder. It obviously passed down the line with each reassignment but the first signature stays.
Third bite:
F’instance, my lease says…
“This lease is made the …..day of ….one thousand nine hundred and eighty…. between FREEHOLDER/DEVELOPER NAME and address (hereafter called “the lessor” ) of the one part and ………………… (hereafter called “the lessee”) of the other part.
The “….” bits are hand written. You then gets a Lessor and a Lessee.. a contract between two parties.
For the lease to start before there is a sale, presumably the developer signs as both Lessor and Lessee to kick it off before it is sold/assigned to the first victim?
Can you create a contract with yourself?
Fourth bite:
Okay, the first lease agreement is not assigned. Assignment is the process is selling on the existing lease before it expires.
But the first lease agreement still needs a lessor and a lessee.
If only you could edit a comment!
This article is confusing.and possibly inaccurate.
I thought only the Nationwide was unwilling to lend on doubling ground rents.
It is very worrying if the Halifax is refusing mortgages, can this be true ?
What will happen on remortgaging in particular Help to Buy
Since when did Taylor Wimpey extend its promise to recompense flat owners as well as houseowners ? TW’s weasel words were a PR stunt which gave the banditos good publicity.
Lenders who have refused to lend on these properties include: Nationwide, Santander, Lloyds (Halifax), HSBC, Barclays and Yorkshire Building Society.
Nationwide and Santander have publicly explained why.
there is an urgent need to standardise residential property deed transfers into one goverrment-approved contract. It is time for parliament to act and deliver for the millions of victims!