Retirement Apartments

Sorry, forgot to say the quote was from OldFrill Sat 10-Oct-26 19:39:12

I notice that more and more these flats are offered for rent.

I would (in princple) rent one, but never buy one.

DaisyAnneReturns

^The OP refers to the TV programme last night which covered the potential problems with leasehold retirement flats.^

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to sell, the problem occurs when you can't sell to cover expenses and are left £ x 1000s out of pocket.

But you can sell. You need to understand that the market is smaller and prices doesn't grow in the same way but this would be the same if you held them under Commonhold or Right to Manage.

The common areas, including the outside of the building have to be managed somehow. People think they can get the same price hikes for the whole of the housing market at the same time. This was never true but that has but that has never stopped people whinging.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself, there are thousands empty and owners are begging the leaseholders to take them off their hands. Not unlike the holiday parks rip off.

Maybe you could argue with the BBC, not me.

Families' debt 'nightmare' as thousands of retirement flats stand empty - BBC News share.google/Kh0RXgAPkshCFVPme

M0nica

I notice that more and more these flats are offered for rent.

I would (in princple) rent one, but never buy one.

Yes, the leaseholders are realising this is one way forward. Either they allow the beneficiaries to rent out or they buy back at a knock down price and rent out themselves. I doubt very much there is profit for beneficiaries given the high fees but at least they might break even.

Leaseholder/freeholder/landlord, apologies for failing to make the distinction.

My Mum had one, a McCarthy Stone build . She was very happy there, it was in lovely setting, with other nice resident who were friendly, her flat led out to the garden which was a bonus.
She was there for about 5 years until she passed away.
We had problems selling but we didn't make much of a loss from orginal purchase price but it took us 2years, to sell.
Having to keeping it empty cost us around 10k.
We couldn't get permission to try and Rent it out, as the management company and Lease hold company would not respond to any requests, useless both of them, in fact both the companies are often berated in the press, fully agree.
That was 3 years ago.

I'll say again. Not all retirement blocks are leasehold and management companies vary.

Aveline

I'll say again. Not all retirement blocks are leasehold and management companies vary.

I didn't see thus earlier Aveline, but I agree.

this!

This is the programme, on YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJhrRykKKp0

I think the message is getting through to the developers. I walked past a big Churchill site today. On the selling material painted on the surrounding fence it said 'No exit fees' , 'Competitive maintenance charges' and a third, which I cannot remember.

All three addressed the problems people had with high maintenance fees, exit fees etc.

The Estate belongs to the deseaced, not to the family, they are not responsible for anything.

We have some near us and kept getting invited to go and see them after "winning" a competition for a Pimm's jug! The pressure was relentless as the apartments clearly weren't selling even though they looked very nice a couple of years later we've learned the truth and flats costing £200k to over £300k are valued at under £10k and still won't sell because of the horrific service charges which have been inherited by the original purchasers descendants when they've died and they still have to be paid

In theory retirement developments are a good idea. However, it strikes me that there needs to be some kind of government regulatory body to oversee the management / operation of retirement developments so that the level of service charges etc., would be subject to more scrutiny. Also, where a unit holder has died and the property is standing empty pending re-sale, the level of service charges should be reduced to reflect that the full range of services normally provided are not being utilised.

Earthmother9

The Estate belongs to the deseaced, not to the family, they are not responsible for anything.

Why do we have an inheritance tax, then. 🤷‍♀️ Could the answer be that we have inherited a property.

petra

Earthmother9

The Estate belongs to the deseaced, not to the family, they are not responsible for anything.

Why do we have an inheritance tax, then. 🤷‍♀️ Could the answer be that we have inherited a property.

The estate belongs to the beneficiaries.
Whilst the estate is being administered, it is under the control and temporary ownership of the executors.

Be careful who you choose.

I've heard these horror stories before and the programme clearly showed the problems some people have when they inherit them. I would never consider one.
My elderly mum moved into a sheltered bedsit with two meals provided each day. The bedsit was essentially a large room with a kitchenette for making breakfast and drinks and a wetroom off it. There was a resident warden and a communal laundry. Many residents socialised in the dining room/lounge in the evenings after their evening supper.
She continued to employ the couple who had been cleaners at her previous home and they did her cleaning, laundry and any shopping. It was ideal and she was very happy there. It was rented from Abbeyfield Society. She lived in Burnley and the accomodation was next door to her church so she could still get there on her zimmer frame. The rent was very reasonable but I suspect rents would be much higher in the SE where I live! It was a great relief when she moved there as she had not really been safe at home for a while, but it took ages to persuade her to leave her home of 50+ years. I live over 200 miles away so I was constantly worried about her safety, and my brother, who lived locally complained that he had to deal with everything when she had falls etc.
Obviously many retirement complexes are much more luxurious but only suitable if you move when you are still completely independant. If you become in need or care you have the added problem of paying for a care home as well as struggling to sell the property. We were able to keep her house and let it out until after she died in case she changed her mind, but after a short while she admitted she should have moved there years earlier when she was more mobile and could have got out more.

I’m not sure I understand some of the bad press regarding these apartments. If the person who bought it enjoys being there and the associated benefits, when they pass away, surely assuming they were paying their own charges, it’s still their money that continues to pay until sold?. The family are not being left with bills because if the owner was still alive they would continue to pay. I can’t help worry that vulnerable older people who would benefit from being in a retirement property are being put off by family protecting their future inheritance

JenniRen

petra

Earthmother9

The Estate belongs to the deseaced, not to the family, they are not responsible for anything.

Why do we have an inheritance tax, then. 🤷‍♀️ Could the answer be that we have inherited a property.

The estate belongs to the beneficiaries.
Whilst the estate is being administered, it is under the control and temporary ownership of the executors.

Be careful who you choose.

Just me being sarcastic.

This article is enough to make you weep. Or shoot someone 🤬

www.leaseholdknowledge.com/investors-see-gold-in-retirement-housing-but-oldies-have-taken-a-look-and-remain-wary-but-the-brighter-developers-are-addressing-consumer-concerns/

hamster58

I’m not sure I understand some of the bad press regarding these apartments. If the person who bought it enjoys being there and the associated benefits, when they pass away, surely assuming they were paying their own charges, it’s still their money that continues to pay until sold?. The family are not being left with bills because if the owner was still alive they would continue to pay. I can’t help worry that vulnerable older people who would benefit from being in a retirement property are being put off by family protecting their future inheritance

"If the owner was still alive they would continue to pay" - but if the owner was still alive they would have an income with which to pay. The point is that those who inherit the property have to pay the fees until the property is sold and if they don't have sufficient capital they must take out a loan to cover the cost until the property is sold.

There are other retirement schemes apart from McCarthy & Stone etc, one local to us is a street of about a dozen terraced bungalows run by a charity and the monthly fees are very reasonable, but they have fewer communal facilities.

Alternatively, people who live in these properties could consider taking out a life insurance policy or setting aside sufficient savings to cover the fees and council tax etc for, say, 2-3 years to allow sufficient time for the property to be sold before their benficiaries have to start paying any bills.

jeanieallergy21, that’s an excellent idea to put money aside as a cushion for fees. I take your point regarding income stopping, but hopefully if they’re able to live in a retirement property with the associated fees, they would have enough money behind them to do so and not unfortunately be living hand to mouth

My mother downsized when she moved into a retirement home, so the money is there to pay for the fees .

Jeannie are you certain that the family of a deceased flat owner pay the bills from their own pocket? If so, they would surely sign a contract when the flat was purchased.

I understood that the fees were paid from the deceased’s estate, including the assumed value of the flat were sold.

winterwhite

Jeannie are you certain that the family of a deceased flat owner pay the bills from their own pocket? If so, they would surely sign a contract when the flat was purchased.

I understood that the fees were paid from the deceased’s estate, including the assumed value of the flat were sold.

My understanding is that the fees have to be paid when they are due, and if there isn't enough cash/savings from the estate to cover them prior to the property being sold then the beneficiaries must pay the fees themselves. Certainly when my mother passed away she had very little savings although she owned her own home. The council allowed six months grace and then council tax on the property became due - before the house was sold - so I had to pay it myself, as all the cash and savings had been spent on funeral expenses, etc.

The point is that those who inherit the property have to pay the fees until the property is sold and if they don't have sufficient capital they must take out a loan to cover the cost until the property is sold.

No, you do not have to pay anything as there should be a Class F exemption until probate and for six months afterwards as you said. After that time, Council tax is payable but accrues until the property is sold and the sum owing is then taken out of the estate.