{"id":409977,"date":"2025-09-09T08:33:11","date_gmt":"2025-09-09T08:33:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/409977\/"},"modified":"2025-09-09T08:33:11","modified_gmt":"2025-09-09T08:33:11","slug":"developer-wants-63-of-retirement-flat-sale-price-property","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/409977\/","title":{"rendered":"Developer wants 63% of retirement flat sale price | Property"},"content":{"rendered":"

The sheltered housing provider Anchor is taking more than 60% of my widowed sister-in-law\u2019s nest<\/strong> egg, which she needs to fund her care home.<\/strong><\/p>\n

She and her late husband bought a \u00a359,995 retirement flat at an Anchor development in Leominster in Herefordshire in 2004. She now has dementia and has had to move out of the flat into full-time care.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The flat has been valued at just \u00a340,000. To my horror, a clause in the deeds entitles Anchor to 2% of the original purchase price when the property is sold. Not only that, <\/strong>it pockets that 2% for every year she has lived there, which totals about \u00a325,000. That\u2019s 63% of the price we expect to get<\/strong> from the sale<\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

MR, Bishop Auckland<\/strong><\/p>\n

The retirement home sector has become notorious for substantial fees and caveats buried in sales contracts which can affect the resale value and make properties a poor investment.<\/p>\n

It is not uncommon for developers to claw back a percentage of the resale price of a property, but I have never come across one that bases an annual fee on the original purchase price. It would seem Anchor had justifiably low confidence in the resale value of the development.<\/p>\n

A clause as onerous as that should be made clear in the pre-sales literature and highlighted by the conveyancing solicitor, but we cannot know if this was done in 2004.<\/p>\n

Anchor, a not-for-profit provider, told me the levy is actually a \u201cdeferred service charge\u201d for a sinking fund to cover major maintenance costs and is separate to the \u00a32,856 annual service charge your sister is paying towards the running costs of the complex.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fees form part of a long-term funding model that helps to keep upfront purchase prices lower and spreads the cost of maintaining and investing in the property across its life cycle,\u201d a spokesperson said.<\/p>\n

The percentage levy is \u201cdeeply concerning\u201d, according to Paula Higgins, the chief executive of the campaign group HomeOwners Alliance. \u201cIn this case, there appears to be no cap on how much the provider may claim,\u201d she said. \u201cWe believe sharp contract terms of this nature merit greater scrutiny and would welcome a sector-wide review of how such fees are applied.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anchor insists its charges are made clear at point of purchase and that, since your sister-in-law agreed to it by signing the contract, there is nothing you can do. A warning to others considering buying a retirement home: study the small print \u2013 there may be horrors further down the line.<\/p>\n

We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com<\/a> or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The sheltered housing provider Anchor is taking more than 60% of my widowed sister-in-law\u2019s nest egg, which she…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":409978,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[51,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-409977","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-business","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-uk","10":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115173418852058887","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/409977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=409977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/409977\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/409978"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=409977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=409977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=409977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}