.
I inherited my late mother’s retirement home and now I am trapped with no escape.
As an executor to my late mother’s estate I have been trying to sell her Extra Care shared ownership flat for over five years. What seemed to be a perfect place for my mother to make home at the time, has now resulted in me becoming a leasehold hostage: trapped with no escape.
My mother’s experience
In 2009 my mother bought her new two-bedroom Extra Care shared ownership (75%) flat. The apartment was sold with a 125 years lease, and she moved in following six months in hospital recovering from a stroke.
The flat was designed and built with older people in mind: wheelchair accessible doorways, wet room, call system to on-site carers, mobility scooter storeroom, on-site dining room and hairdressers. My mum’s limited mobility improved with the help of carers, but she still needed assistance with personal care. Extra Care meant that the carers were on site 24 hours a day. Her care support would be ramped up over time as her needs changed, enabling her to retain her independence for as long as possible.
Independence was important. But my mother also liked the fact that help was on hand from the carers if, and when, she needed it. And, because it was the same carers she saw most days they became her friends. The security which the development offered, and having privacy behind her own front door, were other positive factors.
Today 50% of the flats in her development stand empty
The development is a mixed tenure Extra Care estate, comprising 10 leasehold and 46 rental apartments. It was built in 2008 as a partnership between Hanover (subsequently taken over by Anchor), the local Council and the Department of Health which provided a grant of £2.92 million. But, today, 50% of the shared ownership Extra Care properties in the development are standing empty.
My experience as a beneficiary since my mother’s death
Monthly service and catering infrastructure charges have increased significantly: from just over £400 per month in 2009 to almost £800 per month today. In one year, following Anchor’s take-over of Hanover, they increased by a massive 43%. Alarmingly, the leaseholders in the development have experienced significant overcharging, amounting to £37,000 in one year. Rather than refund the money to the 10 leaseholders Anchor chose to credit a central ‘homeowners fund’ for the development. Only Anchor can access the fund and decide what it is used for.
Since my mother’s death her estate has accrued more than £43,000 of service and catering infrastructure debt. These debts will need to be considered at the time of sale, when an exit / event fee (1% of the sale price) and contribution to a ‘sinking fund’ (number of years of ownership multiplied by 0.75% of the sale price) will also be payable.
Because the property has been on the market for so long, and property prices for these types of flats continue to fall, there is a very real possibility that her estate will fall into bankruptcy.
Anchor refuses to buyback her home: they benefit from it standing empty
Whilst demands from Anchor for monthly service and catering charges continue to accrue there is no financial incentive for the housing provider (Anchor) to see the property sold. Anchor’s leasehold agreement does not permit us to let or sub-let the property. And it imposes severe restrictions on who can buy the property.
Anchor continue to refuse to buy back the property, so the flat stands empty. What is laughingly termed ‘shared ownership’ equates to the leaseholder taking 100% ownership of the risks and costs associated with not being able to sell the property.
Is it right for housing providers such as Anchor to continue to benefit from charitable or exempt charitable status and receive government grants to build new (often luxury) developments when they are doing so little to ensure that existing developments run at full occupancy?
Featured image: Bruno Aguirre on Unsplash
.
.
Be First to Comment