Section 20 Estimates

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Section 20 Estimates

    Hi guys, hope you're all good.

    I was hoping to reach out and see if anyone could help me with a question I have around the Section 20 process.

    Is there anything in the process around the length of time the freeholder has to get the estimates to us to review once the notice of intention period has expired?

    I know that we have 30 days to review them once issued, but our freeholder is being difficult with our sale and has done a number of things to block it. He has already caused three buyers to pull out already. We keep asking when they will be ready, but we're getting nothing back.

    We have disclosed to our new buyers that there will be works coming, but we can't negotiate costs with them as we don't know what they are yet. I'm worried the freeholder will never get these estimate done, which will constantly put buyers off due to the uncertainty.

    Is there any time limit on these at all? Can the freeholder just take their sweet time?

    Any advice would be amazing.

    Thanks, all.

    There is nothing in statute law. I seem to remember that there is case law as when the time is so long that the process should restart from the beginning.

    You would expect four to six weeks, if there were any changes as a result of the first stage, or leaseholder proposed contractors, but that is much less than the amount of time after which the consultation might be considered stale.


      Thanks so much for tbe quick response. So basically, if he wanted to take three months to get them back to us, he could?


        Depending on the type of work proposed, and the responses received following the first stage of consultation, it may be unreasonable, or even not possible, for the freeholder to quickly issue quotes.

        For example, if leaseholders responses require the proposed work to be reassessed for any reason new specifications might have to be produced before quotes are obtained.


          I would say the effective limit is more like a year. However, if the question is the uncertainty in the charge, the only effect of taking too long is that the process has to start over. If the work was necessary originally, it will still be necessary, so the cost of it will still be a cost to the buyer, however long it takes.


          Latest Activity


          • Reply to Freeholder/Agent Demanding Money for Repairs
            by eagle2
            It makes you wonder why any freeholder should comply with s20 at all. As you say, it can wait to see if any leaseholder challenges the costs. It does not even need to explain why it did not comply with s20, the only consideration appears to be whether or not the leaseholders suffered any financial prejudice,...
            23-10-2021, 06:34 AM
          • Freeholder/Agent Demanding Money for Repairs
            by SSLA91
            Hi all,

            Long time lurker of this forum and recent new member. Have always found the forum incredibly helpful so thank you! Have now got an issue with our freeholder that I could use some specific advice on (have tried searching for similar posts but to no avail).

            We have recently...
            20-10-2021, 20:28 PM
          • Section 20 notice
            by Starlane
            Hello I would welcome input on the following:
            Two roofs feed into a valley, the valley is in need of repair, this is a shared responsibility and therefore a shared cost. so how do we issue a section 20 notice when really we need the consent and agreement from two different buildings/landlords...
            22-10-2021, 19:09 PM
          • Reply to Section 20 notice
            by Starlane
            Hi Macromia thank you as always for your helpful and sensible input.. one building is saying one thing and another building the other, the usual chinese whispers so I took the bull by the horns and spoke to everyone and I am almost there apart from a Director who wants to do their own thing ( not being...
            22-10-2021, 20:57 PM
          • Share of freehold questions - confused
            by sixunforced
            Not sure if this is the right place for this query but anyway, I'm a first time buyer and have been searching for a property for like two years now (not continuously but on and off and obv covid halted my search for a while). I found a really nice 2 bedroom flat for under £320,000 in a block of around...
            18-11-2020, 21:19 PM
          • Reply to Share of freehold questions - confused
            by Starlane
            Agree thank you...
            22-10-2021, 20:52 PM
          • Reply to Section 20 notice
            by Macromia
            Assuming that the two freeholders have agreed that they will work together and share the costs, they jointly agree what needs to be communicated to the leaseholders and then each freeholder writes to the leaseholders in their building.
            22-10-2021, 20:16 PM
          • Freeholder threatening to cut water off
            by Disraeli-LLH
            I was hoping you would be able to help. We own a ground floor flat LLH(970 yrs remaining). The freeholder owns the house and lets the flat upstairs on an AST.

            The freeholder currently undertaking works including replumbing. We have been on a shared water supply and we connect through their...
            20-10-2021, 15:35 PM
          • Reply to Freeholder threatening to cut water off
            by Macromia
            This is possibly by far the most important consideration, in my opinion.
            If the OP's lease doesn't allow 'improvements' to be charged to service charges, the freeholder cannot require them to contribute anything towards the costs, and would therefore be something that they would have had no choice...
            22-10-2021, 20:08 PM
          • Reply to Freeholder/Agent Demanding Money for Repairs
            by Macromia

            Although when my freeholder applied for dispensation a while back (arguing that the proposed work had to be carried out as a matter of urgency) they were granted dispensation with the First Tier Tribunal commenting that the 2013 Supreme Court Case of Daejan versus Benson meant...
            22-10-2021, 19:51 PM