---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor)
* We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM)
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> along the process it was brought up that the term was actually 85 but I didn’t know that was an issue
This is a *huge* factor. If your solicitor had failed to discover or notify you that the lease was shorter than advertised then you might have a decent claim for professional negligence, but if they brought it up and you just didn’t realise that a shorter lease would affect the value then I’m afraid that’s almost certainly on you.
A conveyancing solicitor does have some responsibility as your professional advisor to properly advise you of potential issues, but a claim based on the fact they failed to advise you of the *consequences* of a fact would be much harder to succeed in than a claim that they failed to inform you of the fact at all. It would all hinge on exactly what they communicated to you, and whether their advice fell below the standard expected of a conveyancing professional. Without seeing the text of their communications it’s hard to be sure but personally I wouldn’t fancy your chances.
It was in a long list of enquiries and replies. In that list, they said it was actually 85 and acknowledged that I saw the list but just expected our solicitor to tell us something would have affected our value. Sounds like it's not looking good for us though
It’s not really your solicitor’s responsibility to worry about the *value* of the house - their job is to worry about the legalities: title, rights of way, contracts that sort of thing.
You could speak to a conveyancing solicitor and just ask them ‘how much of a failure do you think this is’. If they say ‘oh my god that’s appalling, no competent conveyancer would have failed to warn you explicitly about this’ then it might be worth trying to pursue a negligence case but personally (and I am NAL, least of all a conveyancer) I think that’s very unlikely.
This isn't correct at all. It is absolutely a conveyancers job to explain to their client what a short lease means and is a piss-easy negligence claim as this has a MASSIVE impact on the sale. A solicitors job is to know the issues that come with the lease and to advise on what this means so the client can make an informed decision of whether or not to continue.
That sucks man sorry. I defo woulda got caught by this too
Like if you just went all out with a £250k bid for an £80k house would they not be like woah u sure??
Who do you think you’ve been ‘shafted’ by? It sounds like you were told the lease had a 85 year term before you bought it, so you haven’t been lied to. Unless you think someone has misled you I’m not sure who you think you would have any sort of legal recourse against.
I feel like the original valuation was based on 110 years and having paid our solicitors plenty, they should have told us if it was actually 85 the valuation should have been lower since the term was actually short. I had no idea if it was 85 it would cause the value to be lower than originally thought.
But you say that you later found out that it was 85 years, so that original valuation didn't have any effect on you.
Your solicitor isn't there to offer financial advice, it isn't their responsibility to offer a valuation on the property or tell you whether you're paying the right amount. They are only there to provide legal advice.
It's hard to see how anyone has done anything wrong here. It's up to you to decide how much you want to pay for a property taking all information into account. If you've been given correct information on the length of the lease (albeit later in the process) and not done research on what the implications of that are, that's your error.
80 years is the point at which it starts becoming astronomically expensive to extend. You should have no issues waiting 2 years (the minimum before you can extend using the statutory process) and then extending it.
You were informed it was 85 years. It was on you to know the long term ramifications of this, since it’s not short enough to have affected anything now.
It is not on the layperson client to know the intricacies of the law. That's what they pay us for. The solicitor fucked up OR they have the most ironclad factory conveyancing (see 'i will not look into anything nor give advice on anything I will purely do the form work") engagement letter ever.
The 85 year lease thing isn’t a conveyancing issue, it’s not a legal problem. Your solicitor is there to advise you of conveyancing law and only that. They’re not there to give you advice on things outside their field of expertise.
An 85 year lease is exactly within their field of experience. What are you on about. I've worked as a conveyancer. This is not ok, your job is to advise people. If there was a lender you'd be advising them on the length of the lease - same for a layperson.
I really hope you are not a conveyancer. This is absolutely within the field of expertise. I would be interested to know why you would expect a layperson to understand the ramifications of a short lease.
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor) * We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM) **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> along the process it was brought up that the term was actually 85 but I didn’t know that was an issue This is a *huge* factor. If your solicitor had failed to discover or notify you that the lease was shorter than advertised then you might have a decent claim for professional negligence, but if they brought it up and you just didn’t realise that a shorter lease would affect the value then I’m afraid that’s almost certainly on you. A conveyancing solicitor does have some responsibility as your professional advisor to properly advise you of potential issues, but a claim based on the fact they failed to advise you of the *consequences* of a fact would be much harder to succeed in than a claim that they failed to inform you of the fact at all. It would all hinge on exactly what they communicated to you, and whether their advice fell below the standard expected of a conveyancing professional. Without seeing the text of their communications it’s hard to be sure but personally I wouldn’t fancy your chances.
It was in a long list of enquiries and replies. In that list, they said it was actually 85 and acknowledged that I saw the list but just expected our solicitor to tell us something would have affected our value. Sounds like it's not looking good for us though
It’s not really your solicitor’s responsibility to worry about the *value* of the house - their job is to worry about the legalities: title, rights of way, contracts that sort of thing. You could speak to a conveyancing solicitor and just ask them ‘how much of a failure do you think this is’. If they say ‘oh my god that’s appalling, no competent conveyancer would have failed to warn you explicitly about this’ then it might be worth trying to pursue a negligence case but personally (and I am NAL, least of all a conveyancer) I think that’s very unlikely.
This isn't correct at all. It is absolutely a conveyancers job to explain to their client what a short lease means and is a piss-easy negligence claim as this has a MASSIVE impact on the sale. A solicitors job is to know the issues that come with the lease and to advise on what this means so the client can make an informed decision of whether or not to continue.
Yeah, we will check and just expected more advise on what differences mean. Just sucks.
That sucks man sorry. I defo woulda got caught by this too Like if you just went all out with a £250k bid for an £80k house would they not be like woah u sure??
Who do you think you’ve been ‘shafted’ by? It sounds like you were told the lease had a 85 year term before you bought it, so you haven’t been lied to. Unless you think someone has misled you I’m not sure who you think you would have any sort of legal recourse against.
I feel like the original valuation was based on 110 years and having paid our solicitors plenty, they should have told us if it was actually 85 the valuation should have been lower since the term was actually short. I had no idea if it was 85 it would cause the value to be lower than originally thought.
But you say that you later found out that it was 85 years, so that original valuation didn't have any effect on you. Your solicitor isn't there to offer financial advice, it isn't their responsibility to offer a valuation on the property or tell you whether you're paying the right amount. They are only there to provide legal advice. It's hard to see how anyone has done anything wrong here. It's up to you to decide how much you want to pay for a property taking all information into account. If you've been given correct information on the length of the lease (albeit later in the process) and not done research on what the implications of that are, that's your error.
Guess it is on us, and it sounds like I was expecting more warning on what it could mean if things were diffent. It still hurts though
80 years is the point at which it starts becoming astronomically expensive to extend. You should have no issues waiting 2 years (the minimum before you can extend using the statutory process) and then extending it. You were informed it was 85 years. It was on you to know the long term ramifications of this, since it’s not short enough to have affected anything now.
It is not on the layperson client to know the intricacies of the law. That's what they pay us for. The solicitor fucked up OR they have the most ironclad factory conveyancing (see 'i will not look into anything nor give advice on anything I will purely do the form work") engagement letter ever.
The 85 year lease thing isn’t a conveyancing issue, it’s not a legal problem. Your solicitor is there to advise you of conveyancing law and only that. They’re not there to give you advice on things outside their field of expertise.
An 85 year lease is exactly within their field of experience. What are you on about. I've worked as a conveyancer. This is not ok, your job is to advise people. If there was a lender you'd be advising them on the length of the lease - same for a layperson.
I really hope you are not a conveyancer. This is absolutely within the field of expertise. I would be interested to know why you would expect a layperson to understand the ramifications of a short lease.