Starmer's vision quest

[PurplePenguin]

Put purchase price and purchase year into an Government ptovided calculator system, and inflation adjusts ground-rentable value.

Or we already have valuations used for Council Tax banding.

Or are we just saying that being fair is just too much like work to bother?

I don't think there is much correlation between ground rent and property price any way. Ultimately, they wanted to abolish it completely, but have allowed a small amount to remain. I don't really understand your issue with it. You were worried that savvy investors who knew the risk might make a loss, and now you are worried that it might benefit someone who is wealthy.

 

[BoldonLad]

But the leaseholder sets the rate. When I bought my current house it was leasehold but I bought the freehold ASAP as a few years later the cost would have jumped significantly. I also would have had to seek the leaseholder’s permission for building work we had planned.

Yes, I thought that was probably the case.

I did similar (ie bought freehold), but, that was approximately 40 years ago, and, not familiar with latest situation.

Being of simple mind, why didn't Government simply continue existing "rules", but, with a suitable formula for calculating the purchase price of the Freehold?, that would have worked for houses.

I have never bought a flat (or apartment), although I have lived in them in France, Netherlands, Spain, but, suitable ownership models must be available based on other Countries experiences, the UK is not unique in having flats/apartments.

 

[CXRAndy]

Starmer the hypocrite-again

This time for facilitating the prosecution of soldiers , actually taking part for free prosecution

Then says our brave soldier spiel on the news


View: https://x.com/i/status/2016424254162538612

 

[First Aspect]

Yes, I thought that was probably the case.

I did similar (ie bought freehold), but, that was approximately 40 years ago, and, not familiar with latest situation.

Being of simple mind, why didn't Government simply continue existing "rules", but, with a suitable formula for calculating the purchase price of the Freehold?, that would have worked for houses.

I have never bought a flat (or apartment), although I have lived in them in France, Netherlands, Spain, but, suitable ownership models must be available based on other Countries experiences, the UK is not unique in having flats/apartments.

I think the problem to be addressed is of people trapped in their homes and unable to sell, because no one in their right mind wants a leasehold property now. And also unable to borrow enough to buy out a leasehold.

Someone has to lose out somewhere and it seems to me that the writing has been on the wall for long enough that corporations have had plenty of time to plan for it. I also think that individual homeowners are disproportionately more adversely affected.

It is also absurd to have ever argued that doubling rent every 10 years was sustainable (or any other above inflation ratchet). At some point the leaseholders were always going to hit an affordability buffer and either gradually lose lease income entirely or need to reduce it. Think grains of rice and squares on a chessboard. Since they've not done so themselves, it is now being done for them.

I'm also not terribly persuaded by the notion that leaseholders were already compensated by cheaper purchase prices, unless they were cheaper by more or less the same amount as the lease over a reasonable period of ownership. I am open to persuasion otherwise but somehow it seems more likely that this wasn't quite the case and it was always a better deal for the leaseholder than the homeowner.

Overall, it is not morally dissimilar to numerous other consumer protection issues that have arisen over the years. Some people will be happier with the nanny state than others.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Put purchase price and purchase year into an Government ptovided calculator system, and inflation adjusts ground-rentable value.

Or we already have valuations used for Council Tax banding.

Or are we just saying that being fair is just too much like work to bother?

Council tax bandings are over thirty years old and are as much use as a chocolate teaspoon for any modern function.

 

[Bromptonaut]

So Starmer and Hermer acted in some way as interveners in cases where the initial investigations were somewhere between deficient and perfunctory?

 

[Psamathe]

I don't think there is much correlation between ground rent and property price any way. Ultimately, they wanted to abolish it completely, but have allowed a small amount to remain. I don't really understand your issue with it. You were worried that savvy investors who knew the risk might make a loss, and now you are worried that it might benefit someone who is wealthy.

I have more than onbe concern. Not "either/or". It can happen.

 

[BoldonLad]

I think the problem to be addressed is of people trapped in their homes and unable to sell, because no one in their right mind wants a leasehold property now. And also unable to borrow enough to buy out a leasehold.

Someone has to lose out somewhere and it seems to me that the writing has been on the wall for long enough that corporations have had plenty of time to plan for it. I also think that individual homeowners are disproportionately more adversely affected.

It is also absurd to have ever argued that doubling rent every 10 years was sustainable (or any other above inflation ratchet). At some point the leaseholders were always going to hit an affordability buffer and either gradually lose lease income entirely or need to reduce it. Think grains of rice and squares on a chessboard. Since they've not done so themselves, it is now being done for them.

I'm also not terribly persuaded by the notion that leaseholders were already compensated by cheaper purchase prices, unless they were cheaper by more or less the same amount as the lease over a reasonable period of ownership. I am open to persuasion otherwise but somehow it seems more likely that this wasn't quite the case and it was always a better deal for the leaseholder than the homeowner.

Overall, it is not morally dissimilar to numerous other consumer protection issues that have arisen over the years. Some people will be happier with the nanny state than others.

Agreed, for Houses. Which is why I said why not just retain the right to buy the freehold, at some sensible price.

For Flats/Apartments it may be slightly more complex, but, not several years worth of complexity.

If we follow the stereotype belief of rich/greedy Tories, I can understand the previous Governments foot dragging, but, Starmer / Labour are supposedly for the "ordinary" person, they have a massive majority, so, why the hold up?

 

[Bromptonaut]

I think the problem to be addressed is of people trapped in their homes and unable to sell, because no one in their right mind wants a leasehold property now. And also unable to borrow enough to buy out a leasehold.

Someone has to lose out somewhere and it seems to me that the writing has been on the wall for long enough that corporations have had plenty of time to plan for it. I also think that individual homeowners are disproportionately more adversely affected.

It is also absurd to have ever argued that doubling rent every 10 years was sustainable (or any other above inflation ratchet). At some point the leaseholders were always going to hit an affordability buffer and either gradually lose lease income entirely or need to reduce it. Think grains of rice and squares on a chessboard. Since they've not done so themselves, it is now being done for them.

I'm also not terribly persuaded by the notion that leaseholders were already compensated by cheaper purchase prices, unless they were cheaper by more or less the same amount as the lease over a reasonable period of ownership. I am open to persuasion otherwise but somehow it seems more likely that this wasn't quite the case and it was always a better deal for the leaseholder than the homeowner.

Overall, it is not morally dissimilar to numerous other consumer protection issues that have arisen over the years. Some people will be happier with the nanny state than others.

Leasehold for houses was a historical thing in some parts of the UK where large numbers of homes from 19-20th century were sold on that basis. The right to enfranchise (ie buy the freehold) was a matter of considerable political action/argument in those places. South Wales sticks in the mind. The Leasehold Reform Act in 1967 followed such pressure.

New build leaseholds were assumed to be a thing of the past. Then in last 15-20 years developers latched on to leaseholds as an income source. Not only was there an ongoing income stream from ground rents but a requirement to get freeholders permission for any changes was another source of massive fees.

Leases were then sold on as an investment.

In the end they over reached and some leasehold houses, particularly with escalating ground rents, became unsaleable.

 

[CXRAndy]

Labour reported to the police for pulling a BBC


View: https://x.com/i/status/2016427386540003808

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2016483720815939779

 

[Pross]

BBC Wales are particularly annoying today. They asked the First Minister if Starmer is a good PM and she made the perfectly reasonable reply that he’s not on the ballot paper for the Senedd and that it’s no point using that election to try to batter the Westminster government cue a reporter playing the clip to the ‘man on the street’ to get their reaction.

 

[CXRAndy]

Labour leant on local council leaders to cancel elections

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2016584433281736910

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2016639620541247633