Taylor Wimpey Share Discussion Threads

[baracuda2] 10/5/2017 15:27

I think you all should draw a line under this lease issue now, I think enough has been said!!!

[dr_smith] 10/5/2017 13:25

Jugears.
Don't know if that's me, I am a longish (2 year) holder and here for long term.
Past work has means I am more familiar with property law than most, but ethics transcend law and good business.
Not clear from your post if you are saying you are happy to hold TW or you are advocating people don't buy TW property (with lease clauses) - which would be talking TW down.
For me it is an investment, try to be unbiased, talking factually.
Good ethics is good business for TW, shareholders and house buyers alike.

[jugears] 10/5/2017 12:51

Sounds to me that some people on this site have missed the TW boat & are trying to talk it down Again?!You have to be really thick to buy a house with lease hold Land (other than a flat where you have no choice) It never surprises me how little people go in to these things Without fully researching it properly. I have learn't long ago in business never to trust any ones advise & the same for investing my money, do your own research & if your not sure about something ask & get them to explain it in a language you understand before you sign anything.

[dr_smith] 10/5/2017 11:39

Leasehold has long been a good investment and is an essential tenure in the property market.
It is not possible to exist purely on F/H.
Living in a flat which may be on first, second, third floor means not all can own f/h.
Laws are in place to protect ground rent from escalating at more than nominal rates.
That has been so for many decades, so a norm.
OK property may not be multi-story on current storm, but same legal basis.

Sue solicitors. Yes, absolutely agree, as a prime caourse of action for buyer.
Sh*tty property co will struggle to sell homes to reluctant buyers, other property co's can sell quicker, having reputation which is a deciding factor on any transaction for like value.

[hernando2] 10/5/2017 11:38

I have had two leasehold properties in my years , and each time i bought the leasehold was reset to 999 years at 1 or 2 pounds year if memory serves, and that is the way it worked for most people buying leasehold.

Having said that I am now freehold. But my next door neighbours property is leasehold and they are charged 100 pounds a month by the owner of the leasehold, or they couldn't buy the property.

This happened when the previous owner of the leasehold sold the property to some developers who then 'did it up' and then sold it on with the new leasehold terms.
My neighbour knew what he was getting into and his solicitor warned him about it, but his wife went to school here as a girl and wants her kids to go to the same school. So they bought.

This is quite different from what the builders were doing, indeed my sister recently bought in a town in the midlands on a new build estate, the builder had a block agreement with a solicitor which was 'recommended '( really it was hard sold) my sister went with that arrangement and then had second thoughts and appointed her own, she then found out the property was 'blighted' by the new railway. the builder then said 'it was nothing to worry about' and that his solicitor did not agree and anyway it may not happen.

She had to get her own solicitor to put extreme pressure on the builder to get her deposit refunded. ( the houses were selling like hot cakes.)

My sister is over 60 and has bought and sold a few houses in her lifetime, Imagine a first time buyer.

the builders have not excelled themselves in this saga. IMO

[michaelbinary] 10/5/2017 11:21

I see your point but don't really agree.
Leasehold, hmmm, sounds like renting, rather than buying, hmmmm, maybe the rent will go up at some point !!!!!, maybe the rent will go down ?...........no never.

I could accept that one or two solicitors would miss this but not all of them all of the time. I would sue them for professional incompetence for not pointing that issue out to me.

Exactly the average person doesnt have the training to understand legal terms etc, that's why you employ "experts" to do for you. bring me back to the previous point, sue them.

[dr_smith] 10/5/2017 11:10

Agreed. Though your examples are physical, tangible and apparent.

>At some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions.
A legal slight of hand is far from obvious.

Flats and other properties have long had 99 to 999 year leases with low ground rents and laws to maintain the ground rent low and that has been the case for decades if not hundreds of years (for residential property).
The average person does not have background to know the norm in legal terms and covenants from cowboy/sharp practice - and that is what it is, that is why it is in the news and why the instigators are embarrassed by it.
Whatever way you look at it, the property company introduced the sh*tty terms for commercial gain. It is not a good way to do business, it is not good for the residential buyer, it is only good for parasitic buyers of the freehold.

[hernando2] 10/5/2017 11:09

It has been said it was 'take it or leave it' now you are a young person keen to get a new house, the prices are rising faster than you can save.

What do you? , oh i will leave it and see myself priced out the market.

I don't think it was a level playing field , but i may be wrong

[jugears] 10/5/2017 09:57

There is no scandal,Demand was caused by people wanting to buy cheaper homes, Hence leasing Land, You can not blame the Builders all house purchasers have solicitors if they are not advising there clients then they are not doing they job !!!

[hernando2] 09/5/2017 17:34

terminated- and was saved from going bankrupt by the banks presumably on orders of the government. the company was bust in the immediate wake of the financial crash and was granted extensions to loans that were by any standards , lacking due diligence.

Now supply has contracted an the builders are being very circumspect, the management probably think they are financial and business gods...

An this is my biggest holding by far..

[raffles the gentleman thug] 05/5/2017 13:05

... and to put it further in context the North West region represented an average of about 1,600 completions a year for TW over the period, or cumulatively about 8,200 completions, a proportion of which would then have been sold with the undesirable leaseholds ... so to me looks to be fully in price here

[raffles the gentleman thug] 05/5/2017 12:48

well simple fact is for "commercial reasons" we are not going to hear anything about numbers until they conclude some transactions on behalf of leaseholders. So we probably got to at least wait until the next update for news.

Meanwhile I personally found their statement to Parliament late last year somewhat reassuring in so far as it sounds like a localised problem for them as opposed to nationwide problem.

As for cost of these freeholds, I've no idea, but I presume their toxicity means nobody is really going to want the publicity of being publicly associated with them - for instance Adriatic allegedly wanting £44,000 for a freehold currently paying just £295 in ground rent does them no favours whatsoever

[stewart64] 05/5/2017 12:43

gbh2 fortune usually favours those that stick with it. Most risks of this nature come to nothing. I just think TW should have been more open about the numbers.

Re re-entering at a lower price, tbh I wouldn't until the numbers are clarified. And, of course, if they are satisfactory the price would immediately revert to over two quid so I couldn't get back in anyway.

Btw I fully expect to be proved wrong and my exit at 2.0143 will be seen as big mistake.

[gbh2] 05/5/2017 12:39

I'm not trying to convince anyone, it's an opinion & time will tell if I've got it right or wrong.

[raffles the gentleman thug] 05/5/2017 11:56

also worth reading TW statement from 14 December 2016 in which they seem to confirm the problem with leasehold houses predominantly only related to their North West region, and was not nationwide, which is somewhat reassuring

hxxp://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/TaylorWimpeyLeaseholdHousesStatementy.pdf

[raffles the gentleman thug] 05/5/2017 11:42

well TW has lost around £230m of market capitalisation since the news so I would have assumed a large component of the problem will sooner or later be discounted in share price

[gbh2] 05/5/2017 11:04

The price drop would be sector wide if it was all about leaseholds.

[raffles the gentleman thug] 05/5/2017 10:41

So my view is these are completely toxic and few will want to be associated with them. Question now is what volume of properties are effected ???

[libertine] 05/5/2017 10:30

hxxp://moneyweek.com/the-scandal-of-newbuild-houses-sold-as-leasehold/

[raffles the gentleman thug] 05/5/2017 10:29

Well I'm sure the buyers of the freeholds do not wish reputations risk of being publicly associated with these instruments either so I'm sure compromise will be reached with large majority of them.Unsettling thing for shareholders however is not knowing the volume of properties sold with these leaseholds. Was it every property sold in that five year period or just a quarter of them? Either way it's a large number

[stewart64] 05/5/2017 10:09

It has been floated on this forum that the buyer of the freeholds should share the pain with TW. . Shares in these infrastructure companies are traded with the balance sheet assets being the main consideration. Those assets come with legal guarantees on purchase.

[raffles the gentleman thug] 05/5/2017 09:35

Whose "they" gbh2 ?