Removing marriage value from premium calculations should be beneficial (all things being equal). Particularly so given that the recent Zucconi precedent made the marriage value component of lease extension premiums even less 'affordable' than had been the case previously...
2/7
But #SharedOwnership often has peppercorn ground rent (though not always) so reducing ground rents to zero doesn't offer anything new to many (most?) shared owners...
3/7
Extending a lease to 990 years is presumably preferable to extending it by 90 years, which was the only option previously available under the formal route. Though it may not make much difference in practice to shared owners...
4/7
Changing lease length to 250 yrs or more at point of sale would have greater impact than increasing the number of years by which people can extend their lease via lease extension. If shared owners can't afford lease extension it's irrelevant whether it's for 90 or 990 years..
5/7
There's also the issue that lease extension increases the value of a property (relative to not extending). If shared owners extend their lease before they staircase to 100% then staircasing becomes more expensive than it would have been if they hadn't extended their lease...
6/7
The move towards Commonhold is very positive.
7/7
You can follow @ResourcesShared.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.