Jump to content

Recommended Posts

These properties were originally owned by Southwark council and went to an ALMO I believe. I do know that lenders have been wary about giving mortgages for ex council flats as I have heard that they are not happy with the soundness of the structures as often neglected in the past. Also if you buy a leasehold ex local authority home you could end up with massive bills as if there are repairs/redecoration/modernisation to the estate, you as a leaseholder will have to pay a share. Sometimes the bills come as high as a mortgage.

This is all true, Pugwash.


But I still feel it is up to the buyer to make their choices, don't you?


Being a member of LAS2000 helps with ensuring the bills are fair and reasonable. And when paying the price for new and VERY good new double glazed windows, the council give people three years no interest credit. Still, it's a lot of money but when doing the search you should find out if anything is planned in advance by about five years, like new windows for example!

Pugwash makes some good points but it may also be that lenders are concerned that when times are hard (now) the authority freeholder may try and delay major repairs as long as possible. This is a serious financial risk to the lender; if the mortgagee defaults the lender wants to be certain he can sell the property to cover his losses. If there are outstanding repairs, with no certainty of completion, the property may not find a buyer.

Dawson's Heights is kept in remarkably good condition, this is possibly due to its listed (or soon to be listed status) as I understand it it is grade 2.


Structurally and superficially huge amounts of cash have been pumped into the estate over the last few years so simply can't understand why anyone wouldn't offer a mortgage, how odd.

Thanks for the responses everyone. It is very frustrating as I love the block and the flats and it is a shame that first time buyers will struggle to buy there.


Regarding the point about ex-council properties, whilst true they aren't popular with lenders, Dawson's Heights does seem to be treated differently as we have had confirmation that lenders will lend on the Dog Kennel Hill estate with 10% and that was for a higher amount.


Whilst two different brokers said they could not find a single company willing to lend on Dawson's Heights at 10%, one said it may be to do with over-exposure in that block of flats. But surely that could not be the case for all lenders.

You never hear about greedy people taking irresponsible levels of debt on do you...

Is it really true that so many people were too stupid to see past what the bank was offering and realise that they couldn't afford the loan...?


Just like people blaming teachers for their children being stupid (because "NO WAY could my child be stupid given that they share my genes"), it is much easier to blame bankers for irresponsible lending (because "NO WAY could I have possibly have been so stupid as to have not been able to work out my finances. It must have been a clever scam...").


If the bank won't lend on a property, shouldn't that be a warning sign that maybe you shouldn't be buying that property...



Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> PeckhamRose Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > But I still feel it is up to the buyer to make

> their choices, don't you?

>

> After ALL we've heard about greedy bankers,

> irresponsible lending, etc, etc... you really

> think this is true?

Gimme the problem was not affordability, the mortgage was agreed they will not even value the property.


I think Siduhe you may well be correct as I know that major work was undertaken to make the land safe to build upon before construction. It would explain why there seems to be a blanket rule across all lenders.

I don't think Gimme was implying that it was affordability, just that the bank think it's too risky to loan on those flats which is a warning to be taken heed of..... Can you not ask the bank why their underwriters feel the properties are not a good risk? At least if you know the reason you can make an informed decision as to whether you wish to proceed or not.

i wonder if it is something to do with concrete/asbestos? some large council blocks will eventually need some massive repairs that could cost anything from ?5k to ?20k per flat.if the lenders think the applicant cant afford it they will be left with the bill.

on the othere hand as others have said it could be the subsidence thing.can you look on the land registry website and seehow many flats have sold there and for how much?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
    • There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda and far more across their briefs than any minister I've seen in years. The consensus was that Labour are so unpopular and untrusted by the electorate already, as are the Conservatives, that breaking the manifesto pledge on income tax wouldn't drive their approval ratings any lower, so they should, and I quote, 'Roll The Dice', hope for the best and see where we are in a couple of years time. As a strategy, i don't know whether I find that quite worrying or just an honest appraisal of what most governments actually do in practice.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...