Opinion on buying a leasehold flat

[Mabsa]

I am a First Time Buyer in the process of buying a leasehold flat in a 3 storey building. I am still waiting for all the searches and documents to be provided to me. However, I have noticed in the Fire Risk Assessment that the overall rating is Moderate (Moderate Harm and Medium Likelihood) which makes me nervous. I still haven't seen the EWS1 certificate, awaiting for it.

The report mentions: The external wall construction of the building does not appear to be of sufficiently low risk that it can be assessed visually as part of this Type 1 assessment. Parts of the front building façade has timber cladding. A specialist survey will be required.
Balcony approaches on first and second floors to rear of building appear to be constructed of non-combustible materials. There is some timber cladding to the front elevation

The building is owned by a Housing Association so this would be their responsability. However, I am worried about the potential impact that this could have if I decide in the future to sell the flat. What's your view on this? Anything I should be checking? Since I am a cash buyer, I didn't have to get a mortgage approved, hence my worry.

I am also not sure that a EWS1 certificate will be available as the building is only 3 storeys (picture attached)

We share the freehold here. 10 apartments and we're our own management company. It works pretty well, we have a sinking fund and we vote on things like service charge increases, but co-operating with neighbours is often frustrating. I could write (and have thought about writing) a sitcom, it would have more than a hint of Dibbly parish council.

I totally agree. Sometimes people on this sort of thread don't seem to have a clue about living in London, where most properties in areas I'd actually want to live in are leasehold flats, and even those can cost millions.

Also, I do live in a share of freehold flat (you ARE still a leaseholder even if you have a shared freehold, which some people don't seem to realise ) and I would definitely avoid this in future. You only have to share the freehold with one unreasonable person who argues over every amount of money he's asked to pay - even the annual building insurance - and it's far too stressful. There are four of us, three with common sense, and one absolute fool who is like this. The experience has put me right off share of freehold.

I also think 170 years is a good length of lease, and the service charges are really low.

As with most things in life… all depends on the people! Good to hear your experience though and glad it works well overall :)

Thanks everyone - I will do some more due diligence but I am worried about the timber cladding (even though it's only for part of the building). In your experience, would this be something which bank would look at and deny a mortgage based on it?

Thanks

Can you get an independent survey and make enquiries that way?

I got a Homebuyers level 2 and it was not very helpful in this respect as it in respect of the facade of the building. The only thing it noted was that there are some loose sections of timber cladding (which concerns me too).

Is there anything else I could do to get a good view on this and make an informed decision?

Thanks!

Ask the experienced people on the National leasehold campaign group on Facebook, you’ll possibly also find other leaseholders with the same freeholder @Mabsa also 170 lease is a healthy lease.

@worldwidetravel2017 nonsense. 170 is fine.

Having a lease is normal for flats and it's long enough not to bother me, just be aware of the service charge snd ground rent and how often and by how much they increase it. Ask how good the managers are.
The cladding I don't know anything about.

There's a hell of a lot of crazy talk on this thread. Someone has to own/manage/maintain any building that is made up of multiple flats! You can't expect to magically avoid the cost of that whether it's leasehold or share of freehold. HA or council flats have to adhere to a lot of rules about how work is notified, costed etc, which is all to protect the flat owners, so you will be protected from the bad behaviour that can come with private leaseholders.

In terms of the cladding - major disclaimer, I haven't lived in a flat since Grenfell, so I have no direct knowledge/experience of the issue with certificates/insurance etc. However, looking at the picture, the cladding is only on the bay windows on 1st and 2nd floors. It's also a much older-looking block than the ones with the modern fire-risk cladding on. It's a small block and if the HA decided to replace the cladding at some stage in the future, it's just isn't a huge job, so costs are not going to be crazy.

Fire-safety wise - if the worst happened and that cladding went up in flames, that's a pretty contained area of the building so even if fire spread quickly in those areas, there's a lot of building in what appears to be standard construction. The exit route through the main doors would not be directly impacted by the cladding. In a 3-storey block you are always going to be relatively easy to save - even if you are trapped on the top floor, firefighters can get there with ladders or up the stairs with breathing apparatus if they needed to rescue someone. Obviously there's no guarantees but it's a better chance that being up the top of a high-rise.

I'm guessing the orangy parts of the building are rendered and it sounds as if the surveyor is essentially saying "where I can't see clearly that the construction is brick, I want to cover myself so I won't commit to saying there's brick under the render. Moderate and Medium in terms of harm and risk is pretty much straight down the middle. That's the lowest you could reasonably get a surveyor to commit to given there's a bit of unknown material in there under the render. Personally, I think I would probably look into the specialist survey. It probably is not hugely expensive and just needs someone to come and drill a bit out of the rendered bit to confirm what's under there. You'd have those results forever, so they'd be useful to have in the back pocket for if/when you sell on - giving you and any future buyers some reassurance.

I agree with Tupster. The timber cladding is only to the two projecting bays at 1st and 2nd storey levels. If it was decided it needed to be removed, it would be straightforward and not difficult to access. It looks like timber boards/cladding, not the composite panels which are a problem anyway. Also, I just want to point out that the rest of the building is all in brick, even the orangey/lighter parts. If you click on the photo to enlarge it you can see the mortar joints. The building also has a straightforward concrete tiled roof which discharge directly into plastic gutters (no problematic hidden gutters, parapet chutes or hopper heads which often get blocked), so there are unlikely to be ongoing problematic roof leaks. The external envelope generally looks low maintenance. I live in a leasehold flat. I prefer it to being a house-dweller.

Thanks for all the insights - appreciate it!

I am checking if the building has a EWS1 certificate - which I doubt since it's not mandatory. If it doesn't, it will be quite difficult to sell it in the future. Would you withdraw if there's no EWS1 certificate?

Firstly a 170 year lease is a healthy lease, there’s only an issue with mortgages if they dip below 80 years and people become sceptical of buying anything with less than 100 years remaining as it the lease extension is likely to fall on their watch.

share of freehold flats are still leasehold you just become one of your own landlords and as mentioned organising repairs and maintenance can become problematic so it’s not the golden goose some people seem to think it is.

housing associations have to adhere to legislation, do check if there is a reserve fund and how much is in it and if any section 20 works are planned and if an EWS1 is due to be carried out if there isn’t one. Have any flats been sold in the building recently? It’s unlikely that everyone will be a cash buyer so if there is recent sale data then it’s a good indication that they are mortgageable.

low rise buildings below 18m are out of scope for requiring an EWS1 so a freeholder isn’t required to get one, some lenders will ask and some won’t.

But your home should be your sanctuary so if it’s going to play on your mind this may not be the one for you.

Even if Section 20 works are to be carried out you will be benefitting from the new roof, exterior improvements etc. I only think it is a problem if the management company are unethical or chose any contractor that fleece them on works.

I also agree about the cladding, the building is low level so not too much of an issue.

Completely agree on section 20 works, they’re necessary in most cases and benefit the building in the long run!

A well managed and pro actively maintained building is a good thing!

What a load of crap. Lenders start to get nervous at less than 70 years remaining. 170 is absolutely fine.

Oh and even if there are section 20 works it depends what they are, as section 20 is for any one job that will exceed £250 per leaseholder. So not a very high threshold to pass

Steer clear. I lost so much on my leasehold. Almost 3 figures.

Six figures obviously lolll

If it doesn't you might not be able to borrow against it - that's been the main issue for those trying to sell a leasehold in recent years

Its not all just about lenders

' people ' dont tend to want to buy properties with low leases

170 years is NOT a low lease.

And yet millions of people own them without huge issues.

There's no telling some people on this thread it seems...

It’s absolutely not