Please explain the implications if my lawyer’s firm is suspended from the Nationwide Solicitor panel ahead of completing my conveyancing in St Luke's?
The first thing to point out is that, this is very unlikely to happen. In most cases even where a law firm is removed off of a panel the lender would allow the completion to go ahead as the lender would appreciate the difficulties that they would place you in if you have to instruct a new solicitor days before completion. In a worst case scenario where the lender insists that you instruct a new firm then it is possible for a very good lawyer to expedite the conveyancing albeit that you may pay a significant premium for this. The analogous situation is where a buyer instructs a lawyer, exchanges contracts and the law firm is shut down by a regulator such as the SRA. Again, in this situation you can find lawyers who can troubleshoot their way to bring the conveyancing to a satisfactory conclusion - albeit at a cost.
I need some quick conveyancing in St Luke's as I have an ultimatum to sign on the dotted line within 2 weeks. Thankfully I do not need a mortgage. Can I escape the need for conveyancing searches to save money and time?
As you are are a cash buyer you have the choice not to do searches although no lawyer would advise that you don't. Drawing on our experience of conveyancing in St Luke's the following are examples of issues that can crop up and therefore impact future saleability: Refused Planning Applications, Overdue Fees, Outstanding Grants, Road Schemes,...
three months have elapsed following my purchase conveyancing in St Luke's completed. I have checked the Land Registry website which shows that I paid £150,000 when infact I paid £215,000. Why the discrepancy?
The price paid figure is taken from the application to register the purchase. It is the figure included in the Transfer (the legal deed which transfers the residence from one person to the other) and referred to as the 'consideration' or purchase price. You can report an error in the price paid figure using the LR online form. In most cases errors result from typos so at first glance the figure. Do report it so they can double check and advise.
I am purchasing a new build house in St Luke's benefiting from help to buy. The sellers would not move on the price so I negotiated £7000 of additionals instead. The sale representative told me not disclose to my solicitor about the extras as it will impact my loan with the lender. Should I keep quiet?.
All lenders require a Disclosure of Incentives Form from the developer of any new build, converted or renovated property, It is available online from the Lenders’ Handbook page on the CML website. CML form is completed and handed to the lender's surveyor when the inspection is done.
Lenders have different policies on incentives. Some accept none at all, cash or physical, while others will accept cash incentives up to 5%.
Hard to understand why the representative of a builder would be suggesting you withold information from a solicitor when all this will be clearly visible on forms the builder has to supply to its solicitor, the buyer's solicitor and the surveyor.
We're FTB’s - agreed a price, but the selling agent advised that the seller will only proceed if we instruct the agent's preferred solicitors as they are insisting on an ‘expedited deal’. My instinct tells me that we should use a local solicitor with experience of conveyancing in St Luke's
We suspect that the seller is unaware of this demand. If they require ‘a quick sale', taking such a hostile approach to a serious purchaser is not the way to achieve this. Speak to the vendors direct and make the point that (a)you are keen to buy (b)you are excited to move forward, with mortgage lined up © you do not need to sell (d) you intend to proceed fast (e)however you are going to instruct your preferred St Luke's conveyancing solicitors - rather thanthose that will provide the estate agent a kickback or meet his conveyancing thresholds set by head office.
I am tempted by the attractive purchase price for a two apartments in St Luke's which have approximately 50 years unexpired on the leases. Will this present a problem?
There are no two ways about it. A leasehold apartment in St Luke's is a wasting asset as a result of the reducing lease term. The nearer the lease gets to its expiry date, the more it reduces the marketability of the property. For most buyers and lenders, leases with less than eighty years become less and less marketable. On a more upbeat note, leaseholders can extend their leases by serving a Section 42 Notice. One stipulation is that they must have owned the premises for two years (unlike a Section 13 notice for purchasing the freehold, when leaseholders can participate from day one of ownership). When successful, they will have the right to an extension of 90 years to the current term and ground rent is effectively reduced to zero. Before moving forward with a purchase of a property with a short lease term remaining you should talk to a solicitor specialising in lease extensions and leasehold enfranchisement. We are are happy to put you in touch with St Luke's conveyancing experts who will explain the options available to you during an initial telephone conversation free of charge. A more straightforward and quicker method of extending would be to contact your landlord directly and sound him out on the prospect of extending the lease. They may agree to a smaller lump sum and an increase in the ground rent, but to shorter extension terms in return. You need to ensure that any new terms represent good long-term value compared with the standard benefits of the Section 42 Notice and that onerous clauses are not inserted into any redrafting of the lease.
I am the registered owner of a first floor flat in St Luke's. Given that I can not reach agreement with the landlord, can the Leasehold valuation Tribunal make a decision on the premium payable for a lease extension?
if there is a missing freeholder or if there is disagreement about the premium for a lease extension, under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 you can apply to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to judgment on the premium.
An example of a Lease Extension decision for a St Luke's property is 137 & 139 Haberdasher Street in December 2013. The Tribunal determines in accordance with section 48 and Schedule 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 that the premium for the extended lease for each Property should be £12,350.00. This case was in relation to 2 flats. The unexpired lease term was 72.39 years.