How can we get our block insured in this situation?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    You are required within 21 days from the receipt of this notice to supply me with either a copy of the insurance policy relating to the above property or a written summary of the policy including the insured amount, the name of the insurer and the risks covered under the policy.
    The OP already knows the answers to these, and they are not in dispute.

    There is no policy.

    There is no insurer.

    No risks are covered.,

    What she needs to know is why the previous insurer is refusing to renew.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

      The OP already knows the answers to these, and they are not in dispute.

      There is no policy.

      There is no insurer.

      No risks are covered.,

      What she needs to know is why the previous insurer is refusing to renew.
      Agreed.

      The point is though that on receipt of the notice the landlord must supply details of insurance and if he fails to do so commits an offence.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

        An RMC is not an RTM. The responder was proposing either a forced RTM, or a voluntary RMC. The forced RTM would still work.
        Sorry not following you as for the moment I cannot see what the difference is between an RMC and an RMT.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

          Sorry not following you as for the moment I cannot see what the difference is between an RMC and an RMT.
          An RMC is not a very strongly defined term. The only statutory reference is that it is a company with SIC code 98000! It is generally understood to be a company, other than an RTM, owned by the leaseholders, and which has management responsibilities. It may either he the freeholder, or be the management company in a tripartite arrangement.

          An RTM has lots of statutes and supersedes what is in the lease.

          An RTM is created by a statutory process and can be done against the wishes of the freeholder.

          An RMC generally has to be provided for in the lease. If the lease is tripartite, it will not, generally have any say over consents. Otherwise, it is also the freeholder.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

            Agreed.

            The point is though that on receipt of the notice the landlord must supply details of insurance and if he fails to do so commits an offence.
            I presume this offence is prosecuted by the council, and therefore a paper tiger.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

              An RMC is not a very strongly defined term. The only statutory reference is that it is a company with SIC code 98000! It is generally understood to be a company, other than an RTM, owned by the leaseholders, and which has management responsibilities. It may either he the freeholder, or be the management company in a tripartite arrangement.

              An RTM has lots of statutes and supersedes what is in the lease.

              An RTM is created by a statutory process and can be done against the wishes of the freeholder.

              An RMC generally has to be provided for in the lease. If the lease is tripartite, it will not, generally have any say over consents. Otherwise, it is also the freeholder.
              Got it.

              RMC = residential management company

              RMT = right to manage

              I had R = "right" and M = "manage" in both cases.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

                I presume this offence is prosecuted by the council, and therefore a paper tiger.
                Inclined to agree. The hope is that the possibility of committing an offence will get some action.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Thanks everyone. Yes to the potential prosecution - in theory - in practice forget it. Like all other so called protections and regulatory bodies they are toothless, either with no legal strength or no money/appetite to enforce.
                  RMC likewise and RTM not possible.
                  Absolutely untenable situation.
                  So - appears whole block must remain uninsured due to (probably fraudulent) freeholder.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    I suggest you contact the FCA and make complaint against the insurer and ask for the insured cover for the building to be re-instated .

                    Comment

                    Latest Activity

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X