Reasonable Costs associated with RTM Claim

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Macromia and Gordon999. I really appreciate your help with this. It continues.

    Having withdrawn the original notice and served a new one with the changes made (even though the consensus on this forum appears to be that they were not needed), the management company have gone straight back to the solicitors who are now demanding I supply them with proof that the changes have been made, also proof that the invitation to join the company was presented properly to the third flat (I've got the registered letter receipt and a copy of the letter). I can't see any reason for this other than that they've deliberately held it back in order to delay further (otherwise it's another strike against their competence).

    I now envisage them trying to charge again for their services. I'm in a bit of a quandary what to do next. They haven't actually issued a counter notice, so I'm wondering whether to: 1. Sit tight hoping the notice's one month deadline passes without a counter notice, but ready to go to tribunal if one appears. 2. Tell them to do it themselves. 3. Provide the information they request and demand an end to it. 4. Invoice them for 3 (as far as I can see, I may be obliged to provide that information, but I can't see anywhere I have to provide it for free.)

    Any feelings on this? At the moment I feel like I'm being driven into a corner.


      It's a bit strange that having sent a new notice of claim with the changes made that they are now asking for proof that the changes have been made. Surely the notice of claim is itself the proof?

      Maybe they want to see the register of members for the company to see if the other flat has been correctly recorded as a member. I would just supply the information they've asked for.

      It's annoying but I suggest that the focus now should be on getting the claim through without further challenge and if this is all they need to satisfy themselves that it's a valid claim then it may be worth doing.

      Also I assume that the bill you've already received was for their work in dealing with the claim that was withdrawn? In which case I think that you will receive another bill for their handing of the new notice of claim.


        Cheers, Chris1544, that's the direction I'm leaning. I just worry they'll then come back with something equally trivial they've been saving. And I do strongly object to the fact that I'm getting a huge bill from them for interfering in what should be a straightforward changeover, and at the same time, I have to do all the work.


          I couldn't agree more. For small properties there is definitely more work involved on the side of the leaseholder in preparing the various notices etc then there is for the landlord's solicitors.

          I forgot to mention in my earlier post but with regard to charging the solicitors for the information, you could do that but you should bear in mind that you will be paying the landlord's reasonable costs in dealing with the claim.

          Therefore what is likely to happen is whatever you charge will be charged back to you in the bill you receive, possibly with admin fees added on top for making the payment.


            Good point, Chris - though as a normal human being I'd argue that wasn't reasonable. But we're not dealing with normal human beings. Mind you, if they paid it and I had to pay it back, there'd be no net loss to me, but at least they'd suffer the delay and some of the annoyance I have to go through jumping through pointless hoops.


              Grendel, apologies for not replying sooner. Unfortunately the details of our FTT judgement are not yet publicly available.

              Regarding my specific case, the freeholder has now applied to the Tribunal for determination of costs seeking total costs of ~£1,900. We counter offered ~£1,400 to which they've given us 1 week to accept the sum of £1,600. Again, any thoughts/advice on whether there is merit in pursuing this further would be gratefully received.


                It's so frustrating that this FH could use the argument that the claim does not identify the premises when his company are responsible for the Appeals Court decision which led to RTM not being applicable for multi block claims in the first place. If that hadn't happened we could simply use the definition in the lease, which defines the estate, not each individual block.It's HIS legal teams which have created this issue; RTM claims are just trying to adhere to the fallout from that decision.

                It's the legal equivalent of driving into someone then suing them for denting your bodywork.


                Latest Activity


                • RTM setup for 1 estate comprised of 2 blocks
                  by stokey83
                  We are 2 blocks separated physically but located at the same address with one freeholder.
                  We will be exercising our RTM with a large majority and we pay the SC in the same pot.
                  We meet all criteria as qualifying tenants etc.
                  Based on current law I understand 2 RTM companies...
                  28-09-2020, 15:26 PM
                • Reply to Freeholder owns a number of leases, is this something to avoid?
                  by andybenw
                  I agree that you should have a very careful look at the condition of the building and what maintenance has taken place historically. The situation may be an advantage if the freeholder is intent on keeping the building in good condition due to the number of leases he/his family hold. Equally if all...
                  28-09-2020, 10:45 AM
                • Freeholder owns a number of leases, is this something to avoid?
                  by phatfish
                  I am buying a flat in a block of 11 where the landlord is a small company with two directors. One happens to be the owner of the lease i would take possession of.

                  The other does not own any of the leases directly, but some family members own at least 4 of them (maybe one or two more, i...
                  27-09-2020, 17:43 PM
                • Reply to Freeholder owns a number of leases, is this something to avoid?
                  by Section20z
                  You need to be looking carefully at the service charge and how well the block is maintained. You could take the contrary view that they have a vested interest in maintaining the property and keeping costs reasonable.
                  28-09-2020, 10:28 AM
                • 13 year back bill from freeholder
                  by Carolinelambie21
                  Hi , I can see a few topics similar to this but wanted some clarification.
                  our freeholder hasn’t billed us since we bought our flat 13 years ago despite us asking him to.
                  now we have notified we are selling so he has finally issued us a bill going back to 2007 for
                  ground rent...
                  28-09-2020, 08:06 AM
                • Reply to 13 year back bill from freeholder
                  by Section20z
                  No he can't but yes he can. If you are selling you really don't have much choice, if you begin a dispute then you will need to inform potential buyers who may be put off.
                  If he's approachable why not offer 50% in full and final settlement, assuming you are obliged to pay insurance and electricity...
                  28-09-2020, 08:18 AM
                • Reply to Freeholder owns a number of leases, is this something to avoid?
                  by Macromia
                  All leaseholders should be treated equally and in accordance with the terms of the lease. Unfortunately this isn't always what happens.

                  Hypothetically, you have the same protections where the freeholder is a company owned by leaseholders, and run by directors who have a controlling interest,...
                  28-09-2020, 01:19 AM
                • Reply to LPE1 Questions
                  by Macromia
                  Managed area will include the building and any grounds, gardens, outbuildings, etc., basically anything that the leaseholders may be required to contribute to the maintenance of via service charges.

                  Common parts would include communal corridors, gardens, etc., and may also include parts...
                  28-09-2020, 01:08 AM
                • LPE1 Questions
                  by comm1985
                  For the purposes of LPE1 could someone clarify the below:

                  1. Slightly confused by the terms 'Managed Area' and 'Common Parts'. For a building of 4 standalone flats with no communal areas or entrances.

                  a) I assume the "Managed Area" is the building containing the...
                  27-09-2020, 18:28 PM
                • Reply to management and maintenance costs for parking court
                  by Macromia
                  Without knowing what your "parking court" is like, I would think that all of the charges that you list would likely be considered reasonable - apart from the management fees (personally I would consider the accountancy/audit charges to be of no value whatsoever to leaseholders, and therefore...
                  28-09-2020, 00:53 AM