Report comment

This morning I was listening to a recent Radio 4's Money Box Live program on this subject matter.

It was concerning to hear everyone speaking on the show tripping over themselves and each other in confusion trying to discuss the issues. One caller said "they owned their leasehold and a share in the freehold", resulted in the presenter saying "they owned their leasehold and their freehold". It is unsettling to note how many people have no idea about the legal complexities of buying property but still see solicitors/conveyancers as someone just to do the irksome paper work done as quickly as possible rather than someone who is looking after their best interests and is trying to help them.

As others have noted changing the behaviour of mortgagees is the most likely solution, but query what is going on with their legal functions, and why they have not already stopped lending where there are ground rents with exponential escalators, or other provisions that have a substantial adverse impact on the re-sale value of the properties their loans are secured on.

Re. " 'After all, why should the number of years which a person can possess and live in a property reduce each year when they have paid the same amount for it as they would have done if it was freehold?,' Rudolf asked.", conveyancing is not my field of practice (and I note there are many other commentators who obviously possess a sounder grasp of this area than me), but this quote seems unhelpfully muddled.

For a start "the number of years which a person can possess and live in a property" does not reduce each year. If the leasehold term (the period a person possesses the property) was for 99 years it will continue to be for 99 years without any reduction. Obviously the number of years left on the term will reduce over time, but if the Conveyancing Associations' director meant that she should have said that, as (tricky thing the law) words are important.

Secondly off the top of my head I suspect "they have paid the same amount for it as they would have done if it was freehold" is not correct. I would expect to pay more for freehold rather than leasehold in most circumstances, as usually freehold has some value over that of leasehold (as evidenced by the fact that there seems to be a market for buying up freeholds on leasehold properties).

I do not know what the Conveyancing Association is or even who they are trying to help, but if they cannot say one sentence without multiple mistakes in an area they are supposed (I assume) to have some expertise then what can they do.

If I want to hear someone talking nonsense I can listen to the general media.