Paying a 'service charge' to Housing Assoc. now I've bought the house....

Marcel

Marcel

Kim Jong Bod
Admin
Messages
29,411
Name
Marcel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hoping to tap into someone's experience here, or maybe someone who understands the legalities a little better than I do.

Whole estate is ex-council (Built in the 1960s). My wife and I have been tenants since Council ownership.
In 2000, a Housing Association bought the whole estate, including the flat where we lived (Round the corner). We kept the Right To Buy.
In 2007 we transferred into our house. Kept the Right To Buy.
A few years ago, we exercised the Right To Buy and, er, bought it.

As part of the covenant (Yes, which we signed and agreed to), one of the stipulations was that we still had to pay the HA a service charge of £16 a month for estate maintenance. (It's not a private estate, it's public access and a mixture of private and HA properties).

A friend of mine bought their house round the corner (same estate) a few years ago. Theirs doesn't include such a covenant. I'm assuming it's because they bought their house from a private seller who bought it from the Council many many years ago.
Naturally there are going to be plenty of people around here with private houses that won't have such covenants, and also some who will.

My query is A : Is that fair? I have to contribute to the upkeep of the estate (Maintenance of common grounds, maintenance of streetlights on unadopted areas blah blah), but others don't? Effectively I'm paying their share. Surely that's unfair.

B : Another friend bought their house round the corner too, but using the newer "Right to Acquire" (I know the method is moot, but I thought I'd mention it). I'm not 100% but I don't think theirs included the same covenant.

There were also other differences. We weren't allowed to buy the garage at the end of the property (They're separate to the actual properties and hired out to residents) because "We have plans for those", yet my friend was allowed. Yes, it was the same person from the HA dealing with both sales.

Basically, in a nutshell, I'm not going to lie. I want to get out of paying this $16 a month. In all honesty I haven't paid a penny. Been meaning to, but never got round to it. Never even got any reminders until this week. :$ It's standing at a few hundred now lol


Any thoughts? (Besides "Stop being a tight arse")
 
You can probably apply to have the covenant removed but I bet it will be hard to do...

Just be thankful your not liable for the maintence of the local church due to some law passed hundreds of years ago, there have been people had with stuff like that, that have effectively had there homes made worthless because of the liability attached, and have spent ten's of thousands of pounds challenging it to no avail
 
I assume you used a conveyancing solicitor when you bought the house, and they will be in possession of all the documentation needed to answer the question.

This site may offer some advice.
 
I assume all the properties are leasehold, not freehold. You need to find out if you all have the same leaseholder. It would be odd that some had different leaseholders if they were all originally council property. If all properties are under the same leaseholder, I see no reason why some people aren't paying the charge.
My property is ex council and I wish I was only paying £16 / month, mines more in the region of £100 a month.
 
MWHCVT said:
..
Just be thankful your not liable for the maintence of the local church due to some law passed hundreds of years ago, there have been people had with stuff like that, that have effectively had there homes made worthless because of the liability attached, and have spent ten's of thousands of pounds challenging it to no avail
Click to expand...

It still cuold be if it was built on parochial land, but you can check and insure for a small amount, cost me £15 when I bought this place, my solicitor was brilliant and
told me about it, seems others round here weren't.
The church had until October 2013 to register an interest with land registry and even that expires when you sell the house.LINK

nilagin said:
I assume all the properties are leasehold, not freehold. You need to find out if you all have the same leaseholder. It would be odd that some had different leaseholders if they were all originally council property. If all properties are under the same leaseholder, I see no reason why some people aren't paying the charge.
My property is ex council and I wish I was only paying £16 / month, mines more in the region of £100 a month.
Click to expand...

Rare for a house to be leasehold, but when the Councils went down the HA route these changed frequently, were I lived the council formed their own but I believe it has changed
many times since then as the properties have been bulk sold, so I suppose it is possible that they each have their own rules, I never had anything like that when I owned the place
 
Leasehold on a house isn't rare at all, in fact it's more the norm on ex council or HA houses than not being leasehold.
It's also on the rise in new build houses of the starter home variety due to the increase in shared ownership schemes.
Also, housing associations in particular, like to quietly slip in a clause when they sell property, giving them the right to first refusal on the property when you sell...a right they retain for 21 YEARS.
 
How things change over the course of time, when I bought mine some 20 odd years ago it was the norm for them to be freehold and the right for them to buy back was only for 3 years and you also had to pay the HA a portion of any profit you made, which could be considerable when you take into account the huge discounts, In reality they rarely bought back as they wanted rid of the
older properties, which were far better built as I found out when I started have work done
Mind you I wasn't told of the chancel thing then either and I bet the new owners weren't either if the mess up their pool conveyancers made is anything to go by
 
MWHCVT said:
Just be thankful your not liable for the maintence of the local church due to some law passed hundreds of years ago, there have been people had with stuff like that, that have effectively had there homes made worthless because of the liability attached, and have spent ten's of thousands of pounds challenging it to no avail
Click to expand...


was a little bit more complex then that....and also irrelevant now,, because if the liability wasn't registered by 2013 then it never can be
 
boyfalldown said:
was a little bit more complex then that....and also irrelevant now,, because if the liability wasn't registered by 2013 then it never can be
Click to expand...

That's what he said :lol:
 
boyfalldown said:
because if the liability wasn't registered by 2013 then it never can be
Click to expand...

Not quite right if you read the link l posted.
l thought that was the case, but it seems not unless the house has been sold after that date
 
Gremlin said:
Not quite right if you read the link l posted.
l thought that was the case, but it seems not unless the house has been sold after that date
Click to expand...


If it wasn't registered by 2013 in never can be. So although in theory you could have unegistered properties liable prior to being sold now it seems unlikely
 
boyfalldown said:
I know the case....
Click to expand...
I deal with a lot of rural/farming property and it surprising how much land is still unregistered ! This was a real headache prior to 2013 though less so now. You can just see a retired solicitor on a PCC dreaming up ways to fund raise and having this bright idea of invoking what is a medieval liability. The Church being one of the countries major landowners didn't cover itself in glory with this, effectively shafting their own flocks!
 
boyfalldown said:
If it wasn't registered by 2013 in never can be. So although in theory you could have unegistered properties liable prior to being sold now it seems unlikely
Click to expand...

Did you read the link ?
It refers to letters received by some house owners from the Land Registry advising them that their properties had been registered in 2014
So unless the law has changed again ?

Quote below

Mr Hajek said properties could be registered as liable after this date if the house had not yet been sold to another owner. Those properties where an interest has already been registered will remain liable if they are later sold, though.

The only way to remove a liability currently is to either prove it is incorrect or persuade the PCC to withdraw it
Click to expand...
 
Overexposed said:
I deal with a lot of rural/farming property and it surprising how much land is still unregistered ! This was a real headache prior to 2013 though less so now. You can just see a retired solicitor on a PCC dreaming up ways to fund raise and having this bright idea of invoking what is a medieval liability. The Church being one of the countries major landowners didn't cover itself in glory with this, effectively shafting their own flocks!
Click to expand...


In fairness, when the tithe laws were also in place (until early 20th century) it wasn't unreasonable. You collect and benefit from tithes, you pay for the upkeep of the church. This law should have been repealed at the time.
 
Agreed, but unfortunately busybodies on PCCs rediscovered what should have ben repealed and used it as a cash cow
 
Gremlin said:
Not quite right if you read the link l posted.
l thought that was the case, but it seems not unless the house has been sold after that date
Click to expand...


I read it, what I actually said was liability for unregistered properties now seems unlikely
 
Bet the people that got the letters thought so too :(

But you did say

boyfalldown said:
was a little bit more complex then that....and also irrelevant now,, because if the liability wasn't registered by 2013 then it never can be
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies everyone.

FYI We did pay for Chancel Liability Insurance when we bought. You never know with these imaginary friend types :p
The house is actually freehold. Our mortgage adviser did explain that while it's freehold...it's like freehold with a bit of leasehold (hence the service charge), that's how I remember thinking anyway.
They do retain the right to buy it back, but only for the first 5 years...and at market value, so I'm not bothered about that.

I'll dig the documents out and report back....
 
Marcel said:
Thanks for the replies everyone.

FYI We did pay for Chancel Liability Insurance when we bought. You never know with these imaginary friend types :p
The house is actually freehold. Our mortgage adviser did explain that while it's freehold...it's like freehold with a bit of leasehold (hence the service charge), that's how I remember thinking anyway.
They do retain the right to buy it back, but only for the first 5 years...and at market value, so I'm not bothered about that.

I'll dig the documents out and report back....
Click to expand...

Marcel , the best thing to do is to get a copy of the Register and Plan for the Land Registry Title for your property . iIs easy to do and will cost £5 or £6. This will initially confirm if your property is freehold or leasehold and detail any covenants attached to the property. A property can't be freehold and leasehold, its one or the other, its the other restrictions listed on the title that will detail your other obligations.
 
Marcel said:
As part of the covenant (Yes, which we signed and agreed to), one of the stipulations was that we still had to pay the HA a service charge of £16 a month for estate maintenance.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your lawyer would say, mine would say "well, you signed it....".

It does seem pretty odd and arbitrary but covenants are like that. The very first place I bought (a 2 bedroom flat) had a covenant prohibiting me from landing commercial aircraft in the garden. It was a struggle but I had to comply.
 
JonathanRyan said:
I'm not sure what your lawyer would say, mine would say "well, you signed it....".

It does seem pretty odd and arbitrary but covenants are like that. The very first place I bought (a 2 bedroom flat) had a covenant prohibiting me from landing commercial aircraft in the garden. It was a struggle but I had to comply.
Click to expand...

Mine has one which stipulates I cannot graze sheep in the garden o_O
 
Marcel, I hate to state the obvious but this is really one for a good solicitor, I am too far removed from the legal side of this now but on the face of it, it does seem a little unfair. It isn't uncommon for service charges on both leasehold (most common) and freehold, and whilst I cannot recall the exact legal phrase the burden of the charge should be evenly shared. Find a good solicitor :)
 
viv1969 said:
Mine has one which stipulates I cannot graze sheep in the garden o_O
Click to expand...
My last house was built on what was once the back garden of a pub, so the first thing on the list of covenants was that the grounds must be for use as a public house. After the land had been sold off for houses the next covenant was that under no circumstance must you manufacture, store or sell alcohol on the premises. Apparently the first comment should have been removed when it changed to residential but instead it was left describing the worlds first alcohol free pub, lol!

My current house says that I'm not allowed to keep (or permit to be kept) any pig of pigs for 80years from 1973. Can't wait till the day I'm allowed to go and buy a pig!
 
So when do I get invited over for dinner? I'll bring wine.
 
Just pulled the land registry paperwork out and it seems it's not a restrictive covenant, it was part of the right to buy that mentioned the service charge.

I'll scan it in (or both) with personal details redacted later :) (Or maybe in the morning)
 
Well, I could pour a glass over the grass. Ironic, given the wine itself has grassy notes.

You can finish the bottle.
 
Llamaman said:
Well, I could pour a glass over the grass. Ironic, given the wine itself has grassy notes.

You can finish the bottle.
Click to expand...

Just bring the wine woolly one, and when it's consumed, if you still feel like trimming the lawn...knock yourself out :lol:
 
None of this is a matter of fairness. It is just the terms of the agreement you signed at the time.
I suppose you have a copy of the contract. I have mine from the last two houses. Solicitors have the originals.
 
I do, it's actually on the RTB Agreement / Offer.
Yes I know I signed it begrudgingly at the time, but the more I think about it, the more it not only annoys me but the more I dont want to pay it!
At least I'm honest! :D
 
Right, here is the right to buy offer which contains the details of the charge.
I've edited out any personal details and what not (please let me know if I've missed any!)

As it turns out, my other friends that bought their property under the right to acquire scheme also have the service charge to pay, so that avenue is a no-go.
The friend who bought his house privately does not, obviously.
150901_1442_qr8mt.jpg 150901_1437_oenta.jpg
 
ATEOOD this is £16. It's annoying to have to pay it every month but given that you appear to have signed a properly drawn up legal document you might just have to suck it up. It's £192 a year - how many years do you expect to live there? How many hours of a solicitor's time could you buy for £192 X number of years?
 
Not planning on moving anytime soon. However, it's £192 in my pocket rather than theirs ;)
 
Looking at the Offer document it refers to the terms in the conveyance, which if it was included in the contract is irreversible. Its impossiible to compare your situation to the friend who bought privately.
The only option would be to approach Contour and see if they would propose a buy out figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top