We have offered to help our son to buy a flat.
A couple of the ones he is looking at (basically all the more affordable ones) are on relatively short (it seems to me) leaseholds of 60-65 years. The ground rents are c. £120.
How common is this? Any thoughts on the matter? I have always looked on flats in general as something to be avoided.
He's looking at a three year horizon so if he sold in that time the lease term might not be an issue, unless the market has collapsed meanwhile. At what stage does it become a problem? Should he look at buying the freehold (assuming that is even practical as a single occupant of a 6 unit block)? I understand that there is some statutory basis for this after 2 years occupancy.
All outside my experience. Does anybody here know what's what?
|
>> All outside my experience. Does anybody here know what's what?
60 years is too short for most Mortgages they are looking for 65 to 70 years minimum. With a 60 year lease you will be expecting the flat to be priced at 80% of its value.
It does sometimes make sense to buy on a short lease, if you know the lease renewal cost, and some mortgage companies will lend or part lend if you agree to renew the lease for another 99 years.
|
Broadly agree with above though I'm not sure market prices would bear out Zero's suggested 20%. Some useful info on these two sites:
www.lease-advice.org/article/extending-a-flat-lease-the-80-year-trap/#
www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/extend-your-lease
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 1 Nov 17 at 15:48
|
Bromp's links are very good and need to be read carefully.
I would add that buying a flat in a purpose built building is quite a different proposition to buying a flat in a converted house. That second I would not touch with a barge pole under any circumstances whatsoever.
|
These were built as flats, in a 1980s estate development.
There is also a services charge of c. £80 a month presumably for maintenance of shares areas and doors, a bit of grass, a hedge and some parking.
|
>> buying a flat in a converted house. That second I would not
>> touch with a barge pole under any circumstances whatsoever.
You are precluding yourself from a significant percentage of the UK Urban and Suburban housing tock, most of east London for example.
|
>> You are precluding yourself from a significant percentage of the UK Urban and Suburban housing
>> tock, most of east London for example.
>>
So there are advantages.... ;-)
|
>>You are precluding yourself from a significant percentage of the UK Urban and Suburban housing stock,
I am avoiding a risk I think unacceptable. What proportion on the housing market contains that risk does affect whether or not I think it a risk.
.
|
|
Make sure any service charges are clear - these have a habit of becoming problematical.
|
>> Make sure any service charges are clear - these have a habit of becoming problematical.
I'd want to know how and to whom they are paid - on one hand it could be a pool managed by the tenants, on the other it could be a management company or the freeholder inflating the costs.
In the case of the one he looked at today the parking area has already been purchased by the occupiers so may well be in a company or a trust. I lived in a house where there was some land owned by 17 householders - when they bought it, it was conveyed to a trust and four of them were appointed trustees.
Cheeky offers might be in order. It can't be much fun for the vendors.
|
>> I am avoiding a risk I think unacceptable.
What are the specific risks you have in mind that cannot be mitigated?
|
I'd avoid leasehold and would prefer a housing assoc deal where you buy a % and the % you own is properly owned.
|
|
most housing association deals are leasehold.
|
>> Tho not all ...
Most, because the financial model and social purpose of a housing association is to hold the lease title. Its how they got financing to build it.
|
|
At least they're going to be reasonably ethical about the whole thing.
|
>> I am avoiding a risk I think unacceptable. What proportion on the housing market contains
>> that risk does affect whether or not I think it a risk.
Not sure what risks you are avoiding. Every person I know that has bought a conversion has not had any trouble. As a significant proportion of the urban stock is conversion, and that market is buoyant I suspect none of them has problems either.
|
>>
>>
>> I would add that buying a flat in a purpose built building is quite a
>> different proposition to buying a flat in a converted house. That second I would not
>> touch with a barge pole under any circumstances whatsoever.
>>
My first two properties were maisonettes in converted houses. As Zeddo says that was practically all you could get in east London (Back in the early eighties anyway). No problems with either, unlike a friend of Mrs O'Reliant Mk1 who bought one in a purpose built council block and was bankrupted when the borough re-roofed the building and paid the contractors a price only a 1980's left wing Labour council would be stupid enough to do.
|
>> 1980's left wing Labour council would be stupid enough to do.
Probably three quotes and went with the highest, split the difference with the main contractor who actually employed the cheapest quoting company to do it anyway!
I acknowledge that management companies can get expensive, however, problems with leaseholders that manage their own property is that sometimes in an effort to save money, maintenance doesn't get done and the building starts to look drab and there is sometimes one leaseholder that never wants any major work to be done.
|
I suppose one way of looking at this is that there is a right price for everything. I'm trying to take the approach of supporting him, leaving the decision to him, and giving advice if it is welcome.
I would certainly counsel against buying one with 63 or fewer years left - by the time the 2 years has elapsed and he can oblige the freeholder to engage he will have his back to the wall, less than a year away from owning a near unmortgageable property. 65 remaining, at the right price, would be more than 2/63 better to my way of thinking. But he could be looking at 15-20,000 for the freehold on a £150,000 flat, so it might make more sense to increase the budget now (at our expense probably, but we could well end up helping him buy a freehold in any case).
He saw one on at £140k today, which the agent intimated he might get for £132k (65 yr left) Another is advertised at 'offers over £150k' with 63 yr left; he's been to see that tonight (internally better than the first) and the owner (a landlord) said he wouldn't go under £140k. I don't think the market is buoyant for these...
Frankly I think I'd rather cough up more now, and remove the uncertainty.
Keep the advice coming please. Unfamiliar territory for me.
|
>>Frankly I think I'd rather cough up more now, and remove the uncertainty. Keep the advice coming please. Unfamiliar territory for me.
Ownership above all other factors (unless the price is stupidly low).
I know (or presume) that it's not currently in your remit, but I would look out for a possibility of purchasing a property that could be changed in to two. A wide terraced house is a favourite (to be split vertically). It is often a reasonable route to reducing costs/borrowings in the shortish/medium term. Not for everyone and of course finances play every part. Furthermore I am unfamiliar with stupid excessive prices elsewhere having lived in rural north Devon for 30 years. in times passed I was up to speed. Having said that, prices here are starting to worry me or perhaps I am getting paranoid.
The cost of existing ain't cheap! MD.
|
As you have already pointed out, a leaseholder has the right to extend the lease for 90 years but this can only be done by the current owner who has lived in the property for 2 years or more.
Anything under 60 years remaining is unmortgageable and the lower the remaining lease length becomes the more expensive it is to extend it.
If he is set on one of these flats best to ask the current owner to extend the lease first and pay for that. That's a fairly common scenario.
|
Stupid question but if he is only looking at 3 years, why not just rent?
Two sets of legal fees in 3 years could make a huge financial dent in things?
|
|
And now away to google leasehold....
|
This BOMAD chief executive is currently working with a younger female client to effect a first time purchase. We are now a fair way down the track with contracts signed anticipating exchange and just awaiting a few minor bits of paperwork. Myself and the bank chairperson have bought a sold quite a few times but this latest venture has been a learning experience for us as well.
The intended purchase is actually freehold, in that the 100+ year old block is owned by the residents via the management company. This company then leases the flat to the owner. The block is very tidy indeed with scrupulous maintenance and a good sprinkling of mature, well off individuals (who have the views from the front across the park). These people clearly know how to manage things and there is a long history of preventative maintenance, decoration, cleaning etc. The solicitor tells us that actually virtually all flat purchases are leasehold even where the freehold is “owned†as in our case, its just the way things work apparently. To summarise our learning from all this –
- A lease of less than 75 years isn’t worth considering. It is difficult to mortgage and any promises that the lease will be extended before purchase simply lengthen considerably the purchase process and reduce the likelihood of eventual purchase. Sellers will sell if somebody comes along
- If buying a shortish lease with the intention of extending eventually be prepared for a fee significantly above expectations. This is a minefield and in those circumstances they have you by the soft bits
- In short, for a lease of questionable length, don't bother
- Get the mortgage agreed in principle first. This includes all the affordability tests etc and you are not a serious buyer until you have it. Estate agents will give you much higher priority if you can demonstrate this. They meet endless dreamers and liars and have heard it all before so have the paperwork available
- To ease the process use the agent’s mortgage adviser and recommended solicitor but watch the fees they charge. This way they know they are going to win several times over and have a bigger incentive to find you the place that suits
- Estate agents are very variable in quality, hardly a surprise. Unanswered phones, messages not responded to, dim as a Toc H lamp bimbos on the end of the phone etc
- Find a few good agents and get to know them and vice versa. Establish credibility and call in regularly to check any new listings. But remember they are not your friends, they are interested in your money and the sale
- In our area FTB flatd are in strong demand. We advised our daughter that any that are on Rightmove etc are there because they are not immediately attractive. Therefore to get the really desirable flat she has to be the first person they call, see comments above
- For an easy resell at a later date buy a small flat in a desirable area rather than the reverse, location-location etc
- For the flat you really want be prepared to pay more than the listing price but always observe your limit. We/she ended up paying 10k above the asking price in a competition to buy the flat, but the mortgage valuation came out at the agreed price
- Be prepared to compromise. The ideal was a 2 bed flat with off road parking and outside space. We/she ended up with a well proportioned 1 bed first floor flat (with a boxroom), a communal garden and on street residents only parking.
- Harass the solicitor. My daughter authorised me to act on her behalf as she is at work during the day and I regularly call them to enquire about process, paperwork needed etc. Despite this and the fact they are a well known local name they appear idle and disinterested. I had to give one of the staff a reminder about the nature of customers recently and things have improved since then.
Anyway, just my thoughts so far on the process for what they are worth. It's a great way of becoming significantly poorer, but at least we get our spare bedroom back.
|
>>To ease the process use the agent’s mortgage adviser and recommended solicitor but watch the fees they charge. This way they know they are going to win several times over and have a bigger incentive to find you the place that suits
>>Despite this and the fact they are a well known local name they appear idle and disinterested.
You think that worked well then?
My suggestion would be: under no circumstances use the agent's solicitor. I naively did when I bought - 15 years ago - and it was £1500. When I sold, through the same solicitor, it was £350.
|
"You think that worked well then?"
Yes. The key issues were to obtain the mortgage agreement in principle, not so straightforward these days, and claim the position as first in the queue for when desirable properties were coming onto the market and to be recommended as preferred buyer in the event of multiple bids. This was achieved. She was the buyer recommended to the vendors in a competitive purchase where the property sold for £10k above the asking price.
I knew it would be more expensive than using our family solicitor, a next door neighbour from 25 years ago, and I also knew that the estate agents were getting a fee from the solicitor, increasing the value to them of selling to my daughter rather than somebody else.
The firm of solicitors the agents partner with are a necessary encumbrance to achieving the key objectives. I can deal with idle and disinterested professionals much more effectively than my daughter can. Yes of course this strategy has its downsides including the aforesaid professionals, but she has got the flat she wanted and the additional expense is marginal compared to the overall cost and the possibility of enhanced capital gain due to buying a particuarly desirable property.
With regard to your costs, you are comparing buying v selling costs, an apples and pears comparison. Of course there is more work involved with buying. In our case the solicitors fee is £995 and the mortgage broker £350 for those who are interested in such details.
|
The Solicitor recommended by your agent, pays your agent a fee. A local chain of agents get paid 750 quid per client, which is then added to your conveyancing fees often more than doubling your selling costs.
It was a route I chose to take when selling a property recently. It was a bad mistake, the recommended solicitors were more than useless, and I ended up threatening to collapse the chain, and sacking the solicitor and the agent for recommending them.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 3 Nov 17 at 19:12
|
“The Solicitor recommended by your agent pays your agent a feeâ€
Yes, that’s correct as I noted in my comment above. The solicitor did disclose the amount, I can’t remember offhand how much but a good few hundred. In effect we were paying for preference, knowingly paying more in order to secure the larger objective.
However all of this game playing is symptomstic of a process that is not fit for purpose. For example estate agents have only light touch regulation - they can’t tell lies for example - wow! Gazumping/gazundering are established practice, access to finance and the excessive length of the process inevitably add further complications as do useless requirements such as the EPC. And so on - we, myself and my wife, have spent less than a grand upfront in the hope and expectation of a better outcome.
|
>>>Solicitor recommended by your agent... It was a route I chose to take when selling a property recently. It was a bad mistake, the recommended solicitors were more than useless...
Likewise here when assisting 86yr old folks to move 10mths ago. The heavily promoted legal folks associated with the selling agents (they also did all the legals re the buy) behaved as if their tie to the agent was almost stronger than the need to properly conduct my parent's affairs.
And re leasehold.... this is the first I have been involved in one and I've sworn never again. The previous owner had not been on the ball with the way he'd conducted himself re his lease and it was an agony jumping through all the lease hoops to get to contract signing. To be fair though this was a situation of 60 flats for the over 55s with an on site management company and different company owning the building.... may have added extra layers of difficulty.
|
The quote from the recommended solicitors is excessive, but it qualifies my son for a "contribution" of £1,000 paid by the vendor(!) towards legal costs which makes it lower than competitive quotes. Sounds bizarre to me, but he will check the overall cost.
Whichever he uses, if it mirrors my house buying experiences then they will need constant nagging.
|
When I got divorced I was trying to hang onto the flat we were buying for as long as possible while I sorted myself out. So I took little interest in the proceedings and didn't respond to communications from the estate agent. When they think their commission might disappear it is amazing how quickly they move their own butts and bully the solicitors into doing the same.
|
>>With regard to your costs, you are comparing buying v selling costs, an apples and pears
>>comparison. Of course there is more work involved with buying. In our case the solicitors fee is
>>£995 and the mortgage broker £350 for those who are interested in such details.
You are talking complete rubbish, I am afraid. When I bought the next time I also paid £350. All transactions freehold admittedly which means he didn't have to spend half an hour reading a lease, but you have paid the thick end of a grand too much.
The solicitor and the agent should have no part in a house buying process save for signing the paper and transferring the cash. If you manage it principal-to-principal i.e. directly with the vendor/purchaser then you don't need to worry how ineffective the paid staff are. It isn't complicated.
And I have no idea how you think the solicitors and the agents liaise or what you think they have to discuss. They do not (except to waste everybody's time). My first purchase, relying on the agent/agent's solicitor, took five months from offer to exchange. Subsequent sale based on a complete paper file I produced and sent directly to the purchaser, cc to his solicitor (and I assume to mine too just for information), took only a couple of weeks.
It is no more complicated than buying a tin of beans, save that you need a contract with both parties' signatures.
|
>>
>>
>> It is no more complicated than buying a tin of beans, save that you need
>> a contract with both parties' signatures.
>>
And obviously you need to check that there are no council planning intentions for the shelf where you are going to keep your beans, it is not designated for a motorway or HS2, that no complaints with neighbouring tins are outstanding, there is no right of way for other tins, that all the construction regulations on extensions to the tin are documented, that wayleaves are in place for any services the beans might need, and that there is no historic liability to chapel tithes.
And if it all goes wrong you can find another baked bean conveyancer to sue the first one.
|
Those are all very straightforward information-gathering box-ticking exercises akin to deciding whether it is Heinz or Tesco beans you fancy more.
Arguments with neighbours you are entirely reliant on the vendor's disclosure.
There is nothing complicated about it. Anybody who tells you otherwise is trying to charge you thousands for the job... or is incompetent.
|
“ you are talking complete rubbish...â€
Well, thank you for your interesting perspective. I would have thought it self evident that the elements of professional effort involved in buying and selling are different and obviously influence the cost element. Of course there is more than one variable, not the least the ability to negotiate a price, which may reflect effort to a greater or lesser extent accordingly.
In my view you over-simplify when you say that solicitors and estate agents have “no part†in the process other than signing paper. If you do believe that then it of course follows that you would “have no idea how you (that is to say, me) think the solicitors and agents liaiseâ€. I don’t propose to enlarge my view on that further.
I would argue that it is self evidently more complicated than buying a tin of beans - finance, title, condition, market status, significance of commitment, transaction and frictional costs etc etc. Just some of many differences.
I have been closely, and significantly financially, involved in several property deals this year and am shortly about to enter into lease and rental discussions on a third property. All I can say is that the OP asked for thoughts and comments with respect to a bank of Mum and Dad arrangement and I offered my thoughts accordingly. I would suggest that whilst my comments may not align with those of others, they do reflect reasonably well some of the key factors involved. I am sure readers can view your comments alongside mine and arrive at their own conclusions.
Last edited by: Lemma on Wed 8 Nov 17 at 22:50
|
You told me what my own personal circumstances were, which - in your view - were that I would have paid more to buy than to sell. You were completely incorrect in your assertion. If that's not 'talking complete rubbish' then I don't know what is.
The agent is there to advertise the property and find a buyer. Once this has been achieved all they need do is collect their fee from the solicitor at the end. Otherwise they are yet another opportunity for Chinese whispers. If you want a smooth transaction, keep them out of it and deal direct, principal-to-principal. Out in the real world of big commercial deals the agent has nothing to do with the process after the buyer has been found; I commend this process to the House.
|
Ooh, I do like to pop in with an irrelevance. The term "Chinese whispers" as used by Mapmaker is now considered offensive in some circles and Not To Be Used, apparently. Have a Google.
It's a minefield should you decide to let it be. Also see "going Dutch" and many others besides (Spanish practices, anyone?).
I imagine Bromp might be better informed. He seems to have his finger more on the pulse. A phrase in itself probably offensive, of course, to dead people.
It's all new to me, I only discovered this a couple of days ago. (Luckily by reading it on the net, not when actually asking for a number 17 and wishing I'd asked for two twenty minutes later.)
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 9 Nov 17 at 19:32
|
“You told me what my own personal circumstances were ...â€
I know nothing of your personal circumstances. You stated above that it cost you £1500 to buy and then £350 to sell. I simply pointed out that these were not comparable figures. It is not my view that you “would have paid more to buy than to sell†- it would appear from your own assertion that you did.
I don’t agree with you on the role of the agent, I think you take a simplistic view. The purpose of an agent is to act on behalf of the seller, which is why the term “instruction†is used. The role of agents is a well established business practice.
I don’t know why you take such a belligerent and categoric view. The real world to which you refer is full of complexity and ambiguity for which specialist advice can be helpful. Is that such a contentious perspective?
Last edited by: Lemma on Thu 9 Nov 17 at 20:05
|
I told you that it cost £1500 to use the agent's solicitor and £350 to use the same solicitor without an agent.
You told me that it was because the first transaction was buying and the second selling. i.e. you told me why the price differential existed.
You were wrong. Not sure why it's so difficult to understand.
|
“My suggestion would be: under no circumstances use the agent's solicitor. I naively did when I bought - 15 years ago - and it was £1500. When I sold, through the same solicitor, it was £350.â€
I interpreted what you said previously, noted above, as you having paid £1500 when you bought, and then £350 when you sold. That would seem reasonably clear, to me at least, from your statement. I then suggested that the additional work involved on behalf of a buyer helps to explain the disparity in cost when selling. As has also been pointed out there could well be some form of commission paid to the agent.
Either I misunderstood what you said or you didn’t write quite what you meant. Anyway whatever the case, not that it matters, others reading this must find this discussion awfully tedious as do I now. I wish you well and good luck in any future transactions, which no doubt will be both cheap and straightforward with your experience.
|
>> Stupid question but if he is only looking at 3 years, why not just rent?
>> Two sets of legal fees in 3 years could make a huge financial dent in
>> things?
Agree, though I suspect you're paying too much for your legals... It's usually the stamp that kills. Nobody should buy a house for a three year stay, IMO. Of course many people have made a shed-load of money doing exactly that.
|
During my present lifetime in which I have bought and sold several properties of varying types and values, including Land, I have found every single ‘Professional’, I.e. Estate agents, Solicitors etc., to be in the main, e***** ineffectual at best and e***** useless at worst.
Someone’s reference above to Bimbo’s, sure rings true, but that seems to be the norm these days. And why do they all seem to have this nasal sound when they speak (or utter) and their voices seem to raise at the end of every sentence. Getting old I spose. Me, not them!!!!
|
This is quite opportune:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5046663/Exclusive-Georgian-houses-left-worthless-legal-row.html
Though the article is not clear as to why the charity cannot extend the leases!
|
|
The Estate Agent we used to sell in May was superb as was the one we were buying through. I think they've upped their game since the advent of these net based agencies - we used a local solicitor who was ok once he got into gear. Nothing stopping anyone doing their own conveyancing.
|
A leaseholder does not qualify for a statutory lease extension (extend term by 90 years with rent reducing to nil) until they have owned for 2 years. The lease-advice website has an approximate lease extension cost calculator, but it can be stressful if the freeholder is awkward, so I would get the seller to pay for the lease extension before you buy. At the very least, get them to serve the S.42 Notice do you don't have to wait 2 years.
Don't be tempted into "extending the lease back to 99 years with a modern (rip-off) rent".
|
The vendor is being approached to issue the notice to the freeholder for an extension which can then be assigned contemporaneously with the conveyance.
We (my son) will still have to follow the process and pay for the extension but it removes the delay and should reduce the cost of the extension.
|
A good conveyancing solicitor is worth paying for. if we move again we'll use same guy as last time, somebody who was on our 'panel' when I was caseworking for the Court of Protection.
Probably cost me twice as much as a local firm and three times a conveyancing factory. But I get to speak to a partner in the firm, receive a proper report on title and if anything's remotely amiss he'll be clucking like a blackbird that's seen a cat next door but two....
|
|
Which is exactly as it should be Brompt, but sadly rarely is in these days of mass-conveyancing.
|
I know a late answer Manatee, but have been staying with daughter.
They are selling a flat in Barnsbury next to Islington, which is part of a beautiful church conversion. Their Lease had only 87 years to go and purchasers found Mortgage companies were not prepared to accept that. They have, because this is classed as Central London, paid £50,000 to extend the Lease to 150 years after a great deal of negotiation with the Church of England, who wanted closer to £80k. On top of that they had to pay a surveyor, their solicitor and the Church solicitor .. an expensive business. When they bought the flat eight years ago they were told it would cost £20k, but the Church said they had not been there long enough.
Their friends in Wandsworth only had to pay £12k plus expenses.
As you can imagine, this has eaten into the increase in house prices they had hoped to cash in on to buy a family home.
Your son may well meet the same problem on a 60 year Lease, that the mortgage companies will not consider them.
|
Seems to be going through now; the vendor will kick off the lease extension notice which will be assigned to my son on completion so he can extend the lease without waiting 2 years. Estimates for a 90 year extension are in the region of £14,000, plus costs, valuations, etc., but at least it shouldn't be a depreciating asset subject to that.
Overall cost should still come in materially lower than he could find a one-bed flat with a 'long' lease.
|
>>Their Lease had only 87 years to go and purchasers found Mortgage
>> companies were not prepared to accept that. They have, because this is classed as Central
>> London, paid £50,000 to extend the Lease to 150 years after a great deal of
>> negotiation with the Church of England, who wanted closer to £80k.
>>
Whaaat! Shurely shome mistake. 87 years is ample for most mortgagors, and over 80 years there is no Marriage Value to pay, so if they qualified (which they did if they have owned for 8 years) they should now have a 177 year lease and unless the ground rent was horrendous, how the hell did they pay £50k excluding costs?!?
|
>> Whaaat! Shurely shome mistake. 87 years is ample for most mortgagors, and over 80 years
>> there is no Marriage Value to pay, so if they qualified (which they did if
>> they have owned for 8 years) they should now have a 177 year lease and
>> unless the ground rent was horrendous, how the hell did they pay £50k excluding costs?!?
Seem to be two ways of getting an extension. One is a formal statutory route under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in which case there are procedural constraints including right to request a valuation from the First-tier Tribunal. Or you can just approach the Landlord and negotiate in which case Tribunal etc is not an option.
It's possible that having the Church of England as landlord makes a difference.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 13 Nov 17 at 13:53
|
t's possible that having the Church of England as landlord makes a difference.
At least one could wear a tutu and a tiara !
|
>> Seem to be two ways of getting an extension. One is a formal statutory route
>> under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in which case there are
>> procedural constraints including right to request a valuation from the First-tier Tribunal. Or you can
>> just approach the Landlord and negotiate in which case Tribunal etc is not an option.
>>
>> It's possible that having the Church of England as landlord makes a difference.
>>
Yes, this sounds like an informal extension, given the reference to a "extend the lease to 150 years", which I cautioned about earlier - this case would appear to bear out my warnings! (Still, if the Bank of Mum & Dad were paying...)
Some exemptions to the right to a lease extension - including if the flat is part of buildings within a cathedral precinct. I don't think that is the case here?
Let's guess that this beautiful flat was worth say £750,000 and the ground rent wasn't excessive, they shouldn't have paid much more than £15,000 for a Statutory extension,
|
>> a flat in Barnsbury next to Islington, which is part of a
>> beautiful church conversion.
>>
St Clement's ?
|
>> Got it in one.
>>
My great uncle WHCP was curate in the early 1900s, and on his death in Burma in 1913 a commemorative stained glass window was erected in the church in his memory. I visited the church many years ago, and the churchwarden's wife immediately recognised me from my resemblance to the portrait in the window.
I never found out whether it had been destroyed, preserved in the church conversion, or removed and sold.
|
|
I will ask daughter, but not sure it is still in situ. They removed the windows and roof from the outer part of the building to create gardens for the ground floor flats. The inner arches were then glazed for the flats. Being on the first floor, they have floor to ceiling arched plain windows in the sitting and dining rooms.
|
Cliff, there is one stained glass window left at the front of the church, a small circular one high up on the building. Investigations now ongoing, but heaven knows what can be discovered so long after the conversion.
|
Bank of Mum & Dad - flats advice - Zero
