LVT tribunal decision on who is responsible for replacement of door entry handset

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

    LVT tribunal decision on who is responsible for replacement of door entry handset

    On 02/10/2012 on a thread titled "Who pays?" a member called "Leaseholdanswers" quoted from an LVT tribunal decision that said "a door entry handset is essential to the function of an entryphone system and its repair as a service charge cost should reflect that". I would appreciate it if anyone could give me any links or references to find this decision as I would like to refer to it directly.I am a leaseholder and the LVT decision seems relevant to my situation as the management company is saying that the service charge does not cover replacement of a handset. However, as discussed in the previous thread it is a communal system and the lease makes no specific reference to the intercom system or handsets.

    I have tried to PM "Leaseholdanswers" to get a link/reference to this decision but the system says the member has his quota of private messages and I see that member has not been on the site for several months, so I wondered if anyone knows where I might find this decision. I have looked on the tribunal decisions website but on my search about 11,000 results came up so I need to narrow it down to find this particular decision. Thank you in advance.

    #2
    For the cost of your internal handset ( i have bought a few ) it's not worth the trouble on here to debate.
    Just pay for the replacement handset, as it is only you that has use of it, and no one else, therefore your hand set is not communaL.

    Only the outside intercom is communal.

    You may not like my answer, but that is what I say to my leaseholders.

    Comment


      #3
      Has the handset been replaced ?. As above Id just do and pay for it myself unless its very pricey. For example my front door is damaged, Ive just bought a replacement for £20 and will fit myself, now it maybe that it should in theory be repaired by the FH and the cost recouped through the service charge (divided by 2 as there are 2 flats) but the cost would no doubt be a lot higher than £20.
      Advice given is based on my experience representing myself as a leaseholder both in the County Court and at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.

      I do not accept any liability to you in relation to the advice given.

      It is always recommended you seek further advice from a solicitor or legal expert.

      Always read your lease first, it is the legally binding contract between leaseholder and freeholder.

      Comment


        #4
        This could be viewed either way - I run the RTM for a large block of flats with an entryphone system.

        The lease says the man co repairs and maintains the entry system, however when phones die, we bill the leaseholder for the parts to replace it. Our interpretation is that the phone is a fixture and fitting of the flat, the system itself works fine but the handset replacement should be billed to the leaseholder.

        In the same way we maintain the TV and Sky system but if your TV breaks we won't be replacing that.

        These things are always down to the interpreatation of the lease, it hasn't caused us any arguments yet - I would say going to the LVT over a £40 handset is OTT.

        Comment

        Latest Activity

        Collapse

        • sub-let fees - help? Estate & Management Ltd
          chipsdog
          First post, so please be patient with me.

          I own a flat that I rent out, I have received a letter from E&M Ltd telling me I need to buy a licence for letting my flat. The fee £135 + £85 every new tennant, global licence £330.

          What am I actually paying for? has anyone...
          22-08-2011, 17:38 PM
        • Reply to sub-let fees - help? Estate & Management Ltd
          andydd
          Looks like the above consultation is just dealing with Commonhold at the moment, had a quick read through..IMO CH is a dead duck and will never work and more energy should be spent on Right to manage, right to enfranchise and share of freeholds, etc (which can perform the same/similar result)....
          22-02-2018, 10:04 AM
        • Sale of flat - breach of lease
          Robble76
          Hi

          The flat below me has been repossessed by the mortgage company and is now up for sale.

          As director of the RTM company I have received a letter from the mortgage company's solicitors asking me to complete their questionnaire.

          The lessee is in considerable arrears...
          13-01-2018, 06:51 AM
        • Reply to Sale of flat - breach of lease
          Robble76
          Just to follow up on this. The mortgage company have coughed up in full for the service charges so we are happy.
          I think it Is best for RTM companies to have the RTM noted on the freehold title at the Land Registry as this is how the mortgage company found out about us.

          Thanks for
          ...
          22-02-2018, 06:36 AM
        • Reply to sub-let fees - help? Estate & Management Ltd
          Gordon999
          The Law Commission is making an 8 week Public Consultation and you can tell the Law Commission what problems E& M is causing to many leaseholders ondemanding payment for something not worded in the lease and the lack of Government regulation and impotence of Council Housing Officers against...
          22-02-2018, 05:02 AM
        • A case for keeping a pet in part bought flat
          GemmaBrown
          Hi,
          Last April I bought a part share flat. I was given permission (in writing) by the housing association (HA) for my dog to live here.

          Two weeks after I moved in I had some exchange with the HA saying that they had made a mistake. The management company (consisting of 2 directors,...
          19-02-2018, 17:51 PM
        • Reply to A case for keeping a pet in part bought flat
          leaseholder64
          There was an article in today's London Evening Standard about why that policy will be very unpopular with short let landlords, which is who I think the policy is really aimed at. Basically it says that the cleanup of pet hairs is costly, and they often cause damage, although those are not so relevant...
          21-02-2018, 21:06 PM
        • Reply to A case for keeping a pet in part bought flat
          GemmaBrown
          Thanks. Again not something that you are not explained when buying.

          I do understand the rule for not having pets in shared flats. However when the pet has lived in the premises for nearly a year, without incident (accept one time he barked at 8pm and that is why the director complained/decided...
          21-02-2018, 19:52 PM
        • Reply to sub-let fees - help? Estate & Management Ltd
          MrWook
          I've recently received a similar letter. So far I've never entered into a dialog with them, I just ignored their ridiculous demands, and I don't intend on starting now. They can see the law is catching up with their racketeering and they are making one last push for £££!

          I would appreciate...
          21-02-2018, 16:47 PM
        • Reply to A case for keeping a pet in part bought flat
          leaseholder64
          It's not really a social housing issue, although the shared ownership thing complicates things.

          The same rules apply to all leaseholders, even if they are also members of the management company.

          Where shared ownership complicates things, when there is also a Residents' Management...
          21-02-2018, 15:41 PM
        Working...
        X