Is £250 ground rent increase an issue?

The problem is they are all in it together and they just cannot help themselves. From the solicitors who do not advise about the implications of an apartment that is already at the magic figure of £250pa at the point of sale, to the Freeholder who sells the Freehold on to another investor who just so happens to have a subsidiary company collecting Ground Rents. Add to this the Managing Agent who just happens to have another arm as a Social Housing provider thus ensuring all those ‘hard to place’ tenants are placed in the vacant properties created because of repossessions and evictions. Include in the mix, the Managing Agent who sends contractors from Cheshire to Bradford properties ( I wonder why!!) with the high SC and you see why people refer to it as fleecehold and are campaigning for change.

Get stuck in. No ground landlord aspires to running the management Frankly it is a burden. The law gives you the right to take it on . Don’t sit moaning about how awful the ground landlords are get involved. Form a board. Get on with it.

In response to Contango re GR.
GR is due under CLRA 2002 s.166 and is not a bargain negotiated. It is required under Law of Property Act 1925 to indicate the title to the lease to a flat is out of a freehold title and indicates the existence of a lessor/landlord and the
service charge for repair to the common parts of the building has protection under landlord & tenant legislation a contribution and tax exempt. Otherwise this cost becomes a taxable imposed charge (rent) and tenant legal rights to reasonable level of service charge lost allowing return of Rachmann style exploitation.

If GRs are abolished, the City boys are already sniffing out the next big idea to replace GRs. See article below

https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/shared-ownership-immensely-complex-nothing-shared-when-it-comes-to-costs-clever-investors-scent-a-revenue-source-to-replace-ground-rents/

Reply to the comment left by Amethyst at 12/12/2023 – 13:31
Yes, SO is a truly awful tenure. Rather like Help to Buy, because there’s a taxpayer funded element, the purchase price is exaggerated, which is likely to lead to negative equity. The leaseholder may only hold 25% of the lease, but must pay 100% of the service charge. If it’s ‘shared’ ownership [buyer owns nothing!], why aren’t the costs shared?

Reply to the comment left by Contango at 12/12/2023 – 01:16
I’ve done it, twice, and been a share of freehold company secretary for a block [as opposed to 2 flats in a house!]. I know what I’m talking about.