£900 admin / legal charges for an unadmitted breach

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

    £900 admin / legal charges for an unadmitted breach

    Hello everyone

    About six months ago I asked to get some advice here after receiving lawyer's letters about my foster dogs, which had not previously been an issue before residents began the right to manage process. The letters were stated to have been triggered under the S146 forfeiture process, which our lease does allow for recovery of.

    However, as our lease contains no blanket prohibition against dogs and no resident complaints were received, I admitted no breach, and after receiving some excellent advice here, I was able to hold off the lawyers until an adoptive home was found for the dogs. Once that was done I communicated same to the lawyer and heard nothing more.

    Today I've come home to an end of year bill which contains a few extra items, comprised of:

    - £282 for 'initial breach of lease'
    - £600 for 'solicitors legal fee'

    ...and I would like your advice on what should be done about these costs.

    I think I've got a pretty good chance of fighting this. Our lease contains no justification for the admin charge for breach of lease, much less an unproven and unadmitted one. And while our lease does allow for the Freeholder to recover S146 costs, my feeling is that this is quite a heavy handed use of S146; moreover, I have a Tribunal decision from 2011 which disallowed all legal costs as the lease 'did not provide for them'. On the other hand, our MA are very willing to double down on these costs by initiating frivolous legal cases so I need to be quite sure about my next steps.

    What are my options here? I suppose i could either refuse to pay and push them into requesting a determination; I could pay and request a determination myself; or I could pay and initiate a determination following RTM. Are there any other options? Any other learnings here?

    What would you recommend I do about these costs?
    Last edited by Benzo; 06-12-2018, 14:57 PM. Reason: adding a bit more emphasis that I'm after advice on the costs, not on the dogs

    #2
    Although S146 may seem heavy handed, it is often the only way a freeholder can recover the costs of enforcing a lease. Your protection against abuse is S168 of the Commonhold and Leaseholder Reform Act. If they have obtained an FTT ruling against you, it is quite reasonable that they should use this route. If they haven't then they need to obtain the FTT sanction.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Benzo View Post
      Hello everyone

      About six months ago I asked to get some advice here after receiving lawyer's letters about my foster dogs, which had not previously been an issue before residents began the right to manage process. The letters were stated to have been triggered under the S146 forfeiture process, which our lease does allow for recovery of.

      However, as our lease contains no blanket prohibition against dogs and no resident complaints were received, I admitted no breach, and after receiving some excellent advice here, I was able to hold off the lawyers until an adoptive home was found for the dogs. Once that was done I communicated same to the lawyer and heard nothing more.

      Today I've come home to an end of year bill which contains a few extra items, comprised of:

      - £282 for 'initial breach of lease'
      - £600 for 'solicitors legal fee'

      Now I think I've got a pretty good chance of fighting this. Our lease contains no justification for the admin charge for breach of lease, much less an unproven and unadmitted one. And while our lease does allow for the Freeholder to recover S146 costs, my feeling is that this is quite a heavy handed use of S146; moreover, I have a Tribunal decision from 2011 which disallowed all legal costs as the lease 'did not provide for them'.

      What are my options here? I suppose i could either refuse to pay and push them into requesting a determination; I could pay and request a determination myself; or I could pay and initiate a determination following RTM. Are there any other options? Any other learnings here?

      Our MA are very willing to double down on these costs by initiating frivolous legal cases so I need to be quite sure about my next steps. What would you recommend?
      Use wording in your Lease and aks them to state where in the Lease does it say that dogs are NOT permitted firstly? If there is nothing in the Lease ie no pets clause then state this after you have got an answer back about where it states in Lease you could not house a temporary pet? Does anyone else have pets there....a cat or bird or other? What are legal fees for? Ask them to break them down and qualify what was the legal advice for? Then go to CAB and Lease to get some advice as well as on here?

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Benzo View Post
        Hello everyone

        About six months ago I asked to get some advice here after receiving lawyer's letters about my foster dogs, which had not previously been an issue before residents began the right to manage process. The letters were stated to have been triggered under the S146 forfeiture process, which our lease does allow for recovery of.

        However, as our lease contains no blanket prohibition against dogs and no resident complaints were received, I admitted no breach, and after receiving some excellent advice here, I was able to hold off the lawyers until an adoptive home was found for the dogs. Once that was done I communicated same to the lawyer and heard nothing more.

        Today I've come home to an end of year bill which contains a few extra items, comprised of:

        - £282 for 'initial breach of lease'
        - £600 for 'solicitors legal fee'

        Now I think I've got a pretty good chance of fighting this. Our lease contains no justification for the admin charge for breach of lease, much less an unproven and unadmitted one. And while our lease does allow for the Freeholder to recover S146 costs, my feeling is that this is quite a heavy handed use of S146; moreover, I have a Tribunal decision from 2011 which disallowed all legal costs as the lease 'did not provide for them'.

        What are my options here? I suppose i could either refuse to pay and push them into requesting a determination; I could pay and request a determination myself; or I could pay and initiate a determination following RTM. Are there any other options? Any other learnings here?

        Our MA are very willing to double down on these costs by initiating frivolous legal cases so I need to be quite sure about my next steps. What would you recommend?
        Also has admin charge been accompanied by the right request format?

        Comment


          #5
          This is a case of someone generating lots of threads on the same issue, something I seem to remember that you do. The clause restricting dogs has already been given and been heavily debated.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
            This is a case of someone generating lots of threads on the same issue, something I seem to remember that you do. The clause restricting dogs has already been given and been heavily debated.
            Sorry if I've caused offence, leaseholder64 - I only included the background for context, not to go over it again - I agree that the clause in the lease has been debated to death. There's no point discussing the dogs because the dogs are gone.

            The purpose of this thread is around these costs - whether I should refuse to pay, pay them under protest and challenge, or what. I have added more context to the original post to make this clearer.

            To answer your question, a FTT decision has not been obtained by the Freeholder and no application has been made for same on either side. I do not think S146 proceedings are likely; I'm just interested in what the board would recommend I would do about these costs.
            Last edited by Benzo; 06-12-2018, 15:39 PM. Reason: more clarity

            Comment


              #7
              There is nothing wrong with a new thread referring to the background information on a different thread. It is clearly a new point which has not been made previously.

              You can apply to the FTT to determine that the administration charges are not payable and you would need to make a s20c LTA 1985 application to ask that the costs of the application could not be added to the service charge expenditure.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by eagle2 View Post
                There is nothing wrong with a new thread referring to the background information on a different thread. It is clearly a new point which has not been made previously.

                You can apply to the FTT to determine that the administration charges are not payable and you would need to make a s20c LTA 1985 application to ask that the costs of the application could not be added to the service charge expenditure.
                Thanks eagle2 . This place is an excellent resource and I want to be respectful of it.

                Would it be better for me to apply to the Tribunal for this determination, or should I make an offer and suggest the MA / Lawyer does so if they're not happy with it?

                Comment


                  #9
                  It would be better to say that you do not intend to pay anything unless it is determined by the FTT, that way the burden of proof lies with the landlord. Your landlord however seems to do the opposite of what he should, so you may need to make the application yourself and if you wait for the RTM and the transfer of trust monies, the landlord will not have access to those funds to finance the case, I would not make any offer, that accepts the landlord's right to charge you and it seems unlikely with the history involved that an offer would be accepted.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by eagle2 View Post
                    It would be better to say that you do not intend to pay anything unless it is determined by the FTT, that way the burden of proof lies with the landlord. Your landlord however seems to do the opposite of what he should, so you may need to make the application yourself and if you wait for the RTM and the transfer of trust monies, the landlord will not have access to those funds to finance the case, I would not make any offer, that accepts the landlord's right to charge you and it seems unlikely with the history involved that an offer would be accepted.
                    That makes sense. Do you think there's any sense in pursuing the complaints procedure before going to Tribunal? Some advice I received suggested it'd make me look more reasonable than going straight to litigation!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Complaints procedure?!

                      Come on Benzo. How likely is that to get you anywhere?

                      You need to stop being such a pussy with these people. Get thee to the FTT.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        You can politely ask them to remove the charges otherwise they will leave you with no alternative but to apply again to the FTT. You have sufficient history to demonstrate who is being reasonable.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I think you guys might be right. I will ask them what the charges are for, what work was done to incur them, ask them to remove if I'm not satisfied with their answers, and make an application to FTT if they still fail to be reasonable.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            If I remember correctly, the freeholder didn't make any contact regarding the perceived breach prior to instructing their solicitors. Is this correct?

                            I would be inclined to argue that this would make at least some of the costs unreasonable (even if it were eventually determined that the costs were reasonable in part).
                            If they wish to argue that the solicitors costs can be recovered until the s.146 forfeiture clause, it is surely reasonable to communicate this possible course of action to a leaseholder before instructing solicitors (at least in cases where it is likely that the leaseholders will take the required action to avoid forfeiture)

                            Comment


                              #15
                              If you wish to go back to the MA, I suggest that you ask for full details of the charges eg who is making those charges, request details of the “initial breach of the lease”, request a copy of the solicitors bill with a full breakdown of the charges and ask them to let you know exactly which clause(s) of the lease they are relying upon.

                              It is better to obtain the details from them now rather than make assumptions and allow them to spring surprises later.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • Freeholder duties
                                FreeH1
                                I am trying to sell my flat for which I have a shared freehold with the 2 other flats in the block.

                                Today I have been informed that one of the freeholders is refusing to complete and return the TR1 (and another form I believe is the PR1?). Without this we are unable to continue with the...
                                15-02-2019, 18:49 PM
                              • Reply to Freeholder duties
                                FreeH1
                                Thanks for your response.

                                We don’t really want to retain a share of the freehold and we are selling the flat as share of freehold. I would assume if we decided to keep the share of freehold the buyer may reduce their offer?

                                The other form is a LPE1 form.

                                Could...
                                15-02-2019, 20:38 PM
                              • Replacing RMC with RTM
                                Centurino
                                In seven days time we have a residents meeting to decide on the future of our apartment blocks; one with nine apartments, one with four apartments, thirteen total. They are about three meters apart physically. Our freeholder liquidated in 2012 and the lender took over as default who then set up an RMC...
                                11-02-2019, 16:11 PM
                              • Reply to Replacing RMC with RTM
                                Centurino
                                Excerpts from my Lease below:

                                Lease Between:

                                BUILDER/FREEHOLDER LIMITED (called "the Lessor") of the first part EXAMPLE MANAGEMENT LIMITED (called "the Management Company" of the second part ME (called "the Lessee") of the third part
                                ...
                                15-02-2019, 20:33 PM
                              • Reply to Freeholder duties
                                leaseholder64
                                TR1 sounds like the Land Registry transfer form. The freeholder wouldn't to have to sign this for the leasehold, so I assume it is being done to transfer the share of the freehold, in which case you could assign the leasehold without but retain your share of the freehold.
                                15-02-2019, 20:16 PM
                              • Reply to Replacing RMC with RTM
                                Centurino
                                Yes, the lender is now the acting freeholder by default but the Land Registry still lists the builder/original freeholder. And that is my major concern that the freeholder will one day flog this site for cheap and the 6 leases not connected to the RMC could be in trouble.

                                The freehold was...
                                15-02-2019, 18:23 PM
                              • Sublet consent and renewal fee
                                Emma87KT
                                Hi,

                                I lived in the flat about 7 years, then moved out and let it out about 2 years now. Recently, the managment company is changed. And new managment company sent letter to request consent of subletting fee ( £80) according below clause in the lease. And they said after first consent period,...
                                08-02-2019, 16:22 PM
                              • Reply to Sublet consent and renewal fee
                                eagle2
                                As previously stated, the management company is not entitled to charge you unless there is a new tenancy agreement. Only then are you required to serve a notice and pay a registration fee. If 5 years have elapsed, the registration fee may be increased from the original figure of £40.00 but it must...
                                15-02-2019, 16:55 PM
                              • Freeholder worst-case on a leasehold house
                                Telometer
                                I should be grateful for your thoughts please. The ground rent was £10 per half year, with no provision for increase. The lease is for 999 years from 1970. The landlord is a notorious ground-rent company.

                                The lease states "Not at any time hereafter without the consent of the Lessors...
                                16-01-2019, 18:45 PM
                              • Reply to Freeholder worst-case on a leasehold house
                                Telometer
                                Thank you Gordon999
                                15-02-2019, 16:45 PM
                              Working...
                              X