FlyTheNest

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

adam wrote: Yes a good piece, but we should remember it's one (influential) author's point of view not an agreed EU position.

Willow904 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Couple oof interesting things on Brexit.

This just RT'd by the commission's deputy negotiator, rebuts Blair's position

http://www.epc.eu/pub_details.php?cat_id=4&pub_id=7865" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have we actually established yet whether article 50 is unilaterally revocable or not? Would surely colour all of this very differently if it is. I'd really love to know what the lawyers are advising Theresa May on this. Without knowing people's beliefs on revocability, there's a missing element to understanding everyone's stance.
If we can just change our mind, it gives Theresa May rather more cards than would currently appear.

AngryAsWell wrote:lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

AngryAsWell wrote:lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

HindleA wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/call ... ment-fraud


Press release
Call for more industry action to stop recruitment fraud


Says the Government that sanctions people that don't apply for enough international spy vacancies on Universal Jobmatch.

Willow904 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

Leasehold is an antiquated hangover that should have slowly died out as old leases lapsed or were bought out through collective freeholds.

As such, I wouldn't call what has been happening with new build houses "a leasehold problem" as such. It is really a mis-selling scandal on a par with the endowment mortgage rip off from the late 80s early 90s which to my mind can only have happened with the acquiescence of unscrupulous solicitors, who should be urgently investigated by the Legal Services Board. It is never in the buyers interests to not acquire the freehold when purchasing a house and their solicitor should have advised them very strongly against doing so. The fact that property developers have been offering to pay legal fees for buyers but only if they agree to use a solicitor recommended by them is the thing that should be outlawed. Indeed, given the conflict of interest I'm mightily surprised such a practise isn't already against the law. Was really shocked to have learned this has been happening. We truly live in the land of spivs.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

Leasehold is an antiquated hangover that should have slowly died out as old leases lapsed or were bought out through collective freeholds.

As such, I wouldn't call what has been happening with new build houses "a leasehold problem" as such. It is really a mis-selling scandal on a par with the endowment mortgage rip off from the late 80s early 90s which to my mind can only have happened with the acquiescence of unscrupulous solicitors, who should be urgently investigated by the Legal Services Board. It is never in the buyers interests to not acquire the freehold when purchasing a house and their solicitor should have advised them very strongly against doing so. The fact that property developers have been offering to pay legal fees for buyers but only if they agree to use a solicitor recommended by them is the thing that should be outlawed. Indeed, given the conflict of interest I'm mightily surprised such a practise isn't already against the law. Was really shocked to have learned this has been happening. We truly live in the land of spivs.

I don't think that is right.

Leasehold allows positive covenants to run with the land, which is not true of freehold.

It also allows for estates to have collective communal provisions that are paid for (compulsorily) by everyone.

Some developers have no doubt abused it, but there is nothing antiquated about it necessarily.

adam wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

adam wrote: Yes a good piece, but we should remember it's one (influential) author's point of view not an agreed EU position.

It is, and a lot of things are up in the air, but it's an influential author using quite a formal publication to repeat and reinforce what European governments have been consistently saying and continue to consistently say. This sounds much ruder than I intend, but there is a point at which this becomes 'I see no ships'.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

Leasehold is an antiquated hangover that should have slowly died out as old leases lapsed or were bought out through collective freeholds.

As such, I wouldn't call what has been happening with new build houses "a leasehold problem" as such. It is really a mis-selling scandal on a par with the endowment mortgage rip off from the late 80s early 90s which to my mind can only have happened with the acquiescence of unscrupulous solicitors, who should be urgently investigated by the Legal Services Board. It is never in the buyers interests to not acquire the freehold when purchasing a house and their solicitor should have advised them very strongly against doing so. The fact that property developers have been offering to pay legal fees for buyers but only if they agree to use a solicitor recommended by them is the thing that should be outlawed. Indeed, given the conflict of interest I'm mightily surprised such a practise isn't already against the law. Was really shocked to have learned this has been happening. We truly live in the land of spivs.

I don't think that is right.

Leasehold allows positive covenants to run with the land, which is not true of freehold.

It also allows for estates to have collective communal provisions that are paid for (compulsorily) by everyone.

Some developers have no doubt abused it, but there is nothing antiquated about it necessarily.

AngryAsWell wrote: Whats been happening in recent years is nothing like the original principals. Lady on R5's program was told she could buy lease on her new build in a year or 2 but found it had been sold and the terms applied extortionate, like having to ask permission that cost £300 to change her carpets! and £3000 to apply for permission to have a conservatory extension. The rent rises every 5 years and can go to over £2000 per year.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

Leasehold is an antiquated hangover that should have slowly died out as old leases lapsed or were bought out through collective freeholds.

As such, I wouldn't call what has been happening with new build houses "a leasehold problem" as such. It is really a mis-selling scandal on a par with the endowment mortgage rip off from the late 80s early 90s which to my mind can only have happened with the acquiescence of unscrupulous solicitors, who should be urgently investigated by the Legal Services Board. It is never in the buyers interests to not acquire the freehold when purchasing a house and their solicitor should have advised them very strongly against doing so. The fact that property developers have been offering to pay legal fees for buyers but only if they agree to use a solicitor recommended by them is the thing that should be outlawed. Indeed, given the conflict of interest I'm mightily surprised such a practise isn't already against the law. Was really shocked to have learned this has been happening. We truly live in the land of spivs.

I don't think that is right.

Leasehold allows positive covenants to run with the land, which is not true of freehold.

It also allows for estates to have collective communal provisions that are paid for (compulsorily) by everyone.

Some developers have no doubt abused it, but there is nothing antiquated about it necessarily.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote: Whats been happening in recent years is nothing like the original principals. Lady on R5's program was told she could buy lease on her new build in a year or 2 but found it had been sold and the terms applied extortionate, like having to ask permission that cost £300 to change her carpets! and £3000 to apply for permission to have a conservatory extension. The rent rises every 5 years and can go to over £2000 per year.

Absolutely. So what is required is regulation to stop consumers being ripped off (although my advice is still read the terms and conditions).

AngryAsWell wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote: Whats been happening in recent years is nothing like the original principals. Lady on R5's program was told she could buy lease on her new build in a year or 2 but found it had been sold and the terms applied extortionate, like having to ask permission that cost £300 to change her carpets! and £3000 to apply for permission to have a conservatory extension. The rent rises every 5 years and can go to over £2000 per year.

Absolutely. So what is required is regulation to stop consumers being ripped off (although my advice is still read the terms and conditions).

The conditions were spreed over different pages under different categories and even the conveyancing solicitors missed them. This really is a rip off scandal.
Some builders sold the leases to hedge funds.
R5 lady can't sell her house because the terms on it are so onerous no one will buy it. Irony is that it's her (and others on the estate) campaign that have made others aware and effectively made their homes unsalable.

Willow904 wrote:
Surely collective freeholds do the same thing, but in a more modern, less feudal way?

AngryAsWell wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote: Whats been happening in recent years is nothing like the original principals. Lady on R5's program was told she could buy lease on her new build in a year or 2 but found it had been sold and the terms applied extortionate, like having to ask permission that cost £300 to change her carpets! and £3000 to apply for permission to have a conservatory extension. The rent rises every 5 years and can go to over £2000 per year.

Absolutely. So what is required is regulation to stop consumers being ripped off (although my advice is still read the terms and conditions).

The conditions were spreed over different pages under different categories and even the conveyancing solicitors missed them. This really is a rip off scandal.
Some builders sold the leases to hedge funds.
R5 lady can't sell her house because the terms on it are so onerous no one will buy it. Irony is that it's her (and others on the estate) campaign that have made others aware and effectively made their homes unsalable.

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:HOSM, Hugo, me how about we let others get a word in edgeways today and discuss something else?

It is the issue of the day, dwarfing everything else.

There is another board I know of where more comfortable things are discussed, and where this, the biggest one, is ignored, because uncomfortable.

Willow904 wrote: When it's their actual job to read and understand every single word of a lease I find it very hard to believe the conveyancing solicitors "missed" important terms and conditions. Which is why I feel this is like the endowment mortgage mis-selling scandal as there appears to be a collusion here to rip off unsuspecting buyers, rather than just greedy property developers out for what they can get. Legal advice is regulated, mortgage lenders have rules to adhere to. For a buyer to be so poorly advised best practice, at the very least, has been ignored by several parties, in my very humble and not at all expert opinion. My impression being based solely on an extremely long afternoon spent in a solicitors office as they went through and explained every single tiny obligation and consequence of the leasehold contract I was about to sign (to this day I still remember that a clothes line in view of the road was prohibited!). A solicitor who has "missed" a doubling ground rent deserves to be struck off. More likely, they mentioned it casually in passing without expanding on the consequences, mindful of the further work they would get from the property developer if they managed not to put the buyer off.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote: When it's their actual job to read and understand every single word of a lease I find it very hard to believe the conveyancing solicitors "missed" important terms and conditions. Which is why I feel this is like the endowment mortgage mis-selling scandal as there appears to be a collusion here to rip off unsuspecting buyers, rather than just greedy property developers out for what they can get. Legal advice is regulated, mortgage lenders have rules to adhere to. For a buyer to be so poorly advised best practice, at the very least, has been ignored by several parties, in my very humble and not at all expert opinion. My impression being based solely on an extremely long afternoon spent in a solicitors office as they went through and explained every single tiny obligation and consequence of the leasehold contract I was about to sign (to this day I still remember that a clothes line in view of the road was prohibited!). A solicitor who has "missed" a doubling ground rent deserves to be struck off. More likely, they mentioned it casually in passing without expanding on the consequences, mindful of the further work they would get from the property developer if they managed not to put the buyer off.

The problem is that most consumers (and I am one) are idiots who, even when these things are explained to them, press on regardless. Which is why you need to regulate terms to protect them.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:
Surely collective freeholds do the same thing, but in a more modern, less feudal way?

No. You can't have positive covenants running with freeholds. There is nothing more "feudal" about leasehold estates than freehold.

English law allows the divisibility of estates along temporal lines, as well as ones of physical space.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote: When it's their actual job to read and understand every single word of a lease I find it very hard to believe the conveyancing solicitors "missed" important terms and conditions. Which is why I feel this is like the endowment mortgage mis-selling scandal as there appears to be a collusion here to rip off unsuspecting buyers, rather than just greedy property developers out for what they can get. Legal advice is regulated, mortgage lenders have rules to adhere to. For a buyer to be so poorly advised best practice, at the very least, has been ignored by several parties, in my very humble and not at all expert opinion. My impression being based solely on an extremely long afternoon spent in a solicitors office as they went through and explained every single tiny obligation and consequence of the leasehold contract I was about to sign (to this day I still remember that a clothes line in view of the road was prohibited!). A solicitor who has "missed" a doubling ground rent deserves to be struck off. More likely, they mentioned it casually in passing without expanding on the consequences, mindful of the further work they would get from the property developer if they managed not to put the buyer off.

The problem is that most consumers (and I am one) are idiots who, even when these things are explained to them, press on regardless. Which is why you need to regulate terms to protect them.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Away from the EU for a moment, Abi Wilks certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons yesterday. God bless her

Gianni Pittella, the leader of the socialist group in the European parliament, said:

I’m sure British citizens will be enthusiastic to go from the EU high standard control over chicken and food to the chlorinated, full of hormones, US chicken.

It is just a further indigestible gift from Tories and their Brexit. Luckily for British citizens, UK won’t be allowed to strike new free trade agreements as long as the Brexit process has not reached a conclusion.

This news reinforces why the EU will eventually need to have checks and controls on goods coming from the UK. We won’t accept a race to the bottom on standards.
(Politics Live, Guardian - my emphasis)

Willow904 wrote:@SpinningHugo
I can just about accept what you're saying about the "idiot consumer" generally (we're all fond of the old concept of caveat emptor), but not on those incidences that included doubling ground rents specifically. The buyer may be fool enough to purchase under such terms, even if known and understood (though this seems extremely unlikely) but how were they able to secure a mortgage against such a lease? I'm off to lunch now, but the mortgage angle of the story interests me, if anyone has any thoughts. Surely if the doubling ground rent rather obviously make the property unsellable in future, a mortgage lender should have declined the loan on the basis that the asking price was not covered by the value of the asset?

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Away from the EU for a moment, Abi Wilks certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons yesterday. God bless her

Unfortunately, it was a ridiculous thing to suggest and discredited her. Oh well.

Toynbee's suggestion of treating inherited wealth as income (and taxable as such) is a serious suggestion. Because she is serious.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
But this is the sort of thing the right have done well since Thatcher's time - suggest "outrageous" ideas that nonetheless get people thinking in the way they want them to.

The Leasehold Advisory Service quango estimates that developers earn £300 million to £500 million a year from selling freeholds on to investors, often anonymous, who can then hide their beneficial interest behind nominee directors. Leasehold rules may well be raised as an issue by the main parties in the impending general election, with the focus likely to be on Help to Buy.

Taxpayers have spent millions underwriting loans, only to find that they have helped pitch a generation of first-time buyers into unwanted longterm tenancies — which is what leasehold means.

The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, has turned down a paid advisory role with the law firm that took the government to court over article 50, after criticism of the potential conflict of interest. Mishcon de Reya said on Monday that it was in talks with Starmer, who was director of public prosecutions before he entered parliament, about a position.

Starmer had previously advised the firm while in parliament, but ended the relationship when he became shadow Brexit secretary in October.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eya-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Away from the EU for a moment, Abi Wilks certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons yesterday. God bless her

citizenJA wrote:

The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, has turned down a paid advisory role with the law firm that took the government to court over article 50, after criticism of the potential conflict of interest. Mishcon de Reya said on Monday that it was in talks with Starmer, who was director of public prosecutions before he entered parliament, about a position.

Starmer had previously advised the firm while in parliament, but ended the relationship when he became shadow Brexit secretary in October.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eya-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour should back the single market. Barry Gardiner is wrong
Heidi Alexander

Countries in the European Economic Area already participate in the preparation of EU legislation relevant to them. They have a hold-out power, ultimately underpinned by the ability of their sovereign parliaments to reject any proposed EEA legislation. Yes, those EEA countries are comparatively small compared to the EU member states. But were the UK to become a non-EU member of the EEA, the current imbalance in administrative resources that exists between the EU and EEA states would be markedly less acute – in all likelihood, strengthening the hand of the EEA members. I know it’s not perfect, but it’s better than the economic alternative.