Director discrimination possibly?

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

    #46
    This post is so alarming I would feel the only way is to go to the FFT asap and seek the appointment of a manager. The consequences of allowing the situation to drag on are serious.

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by eagle2 View Post

      You are quite right, there would be a constant battle with the other leaseholders who can outvote him at every opportunity, the relationship is going to deteriorate, if that is possible. As Sarah B suggested, he could apply for a manager to be appointed but that is not going to improve the relationship either.
      The relationship has been poisoned by a previous highly controlling dominant director who has now left thank goodness! He has tried but he does not know these new directors and even though he has shown good intentions, meaning well etc, he could not understand how these new people were so anti him from the beginning without knowing him, so he continued and tried and then found out that they were having meetings again without him so he challenged this and then it came out that this director who left had been saying stuff to them behind his back, but what they should have done is find out for themselves rather than listen to an old gossip. He thinks the director was trying to turn people against him.

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
        What protected characteristic is being discriminated against?

        RTMs dont' have AGMs and therefore don't have AGM endorsement processes.
        As a matter of language the term "unfair" is not limited to cases of unequal treatment but is capable of including conduct which is unfair to everybody within the class. Unfairness is, of course, used in the sense of unfair discrimination
        in section 994 of the Companies Act 2006,

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
          As I already hinted, for a discrimination case to succeed, one has to demonstrate that the the rejection was based on a protected characteristic, and nothing has been said here that suggests that that is the case.
          As a matter of language the term "unfair" is not limited to cases of unequal treatment but is capable of including conduct which is unfair to everybody within the class. Unfairness is, of course, used in the sense of unfair discrimination
          in section 994 of the Companies Act 2006,

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Stacker View Post

            That is right, there is no managing agent......I would say the previous directors have used their position to further their own interests and not plan for a sinking fund......paid themselves for property repairs.....they don't even inspect the property and know anything about construction and what the property is made of etc...
            Considering all posts you need to understand you have to move away from company law & AoA and look at your rights as a leaseholder. You have stated this leaseholder understands the lease and RICS Code of Practice, therefore concentrate on what is not being done that should be done under the terms of the lease.

            As others have stated you can apply to the FtT for appointment of a manager, alternatively you could do the ground work and then put your observations to the other leaseholders demonstrating how if a manager was appointed by the FtT it would impact on them financially moving forwards.

            A link to appointing a manager:

            https://decisions.lease-advice.org/t...decision_type=

            Comment


              #51
              The old directors appear to have sold their apartments and are no longer involved so I suggest that you concentrate on the new directors and provide them with a list of suggestions in order of priority and let them have a reasonable amount of time to comply with the request.

              Comment


                #52
                I don't think that I'd want to rush into trying to appoint a manager in this case (unless there is work that urgently needs doing and isn't being arranged).

                Does this leaseholder have at least a passable relationship with any of the other leaseholders? If he does, he would likely do far better forgetting about challenging the directors and (slowly and carefully) trying to gain influence by getting others leaseholders on side.

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by Macromia View Post
                  I don't think that I'd want to rush into trying to appoint a manager in this case (unless there is work that urgently needs doing and isn't being arranged).

                  Does this leaseholder have at least a passable relationship with any of the other leaseholders? If he does, he would likely do far better forgetting about challenging the directors and (slowly and carefully) trying to gain influence by getting others leaseholders on side.
                  Whilst you mean well Macromania and it is indeed the most sensible way forward, he has tried and all they do even the new directors is ignore him...lack of maturity and the ability to share are the main issues and its not right that he should be left out this way, he cant change anything as the two directors and their partners are all shareholders so its always going to be four of them to one of him for now. Its pointless so as its been suggested here, I have shared with him that now needs to come from the angle of the Lease so that is why I mentioned his beef with the subletting fees, this is the company's money not the directors, they refuse to pay their admin fees which belong to the company and then want to charge everyone for alleged company solicitors fees for a shareholder dispute with him which they cant do, CH fees and D&O insurance and building insurance has gone up because the flats are sublet....they cant have it both ways...the shareholders are not responsible for any of these fees and it is never discussed just imposed...they even allowed pets when its against the Lease.

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by josepha333 View Post

                    Considering all posts you need to understand you have to move away from company law & AoA and look at your rights as a leaseholder. You have stated this leaseholder understands the lease and RICS Code of Practice, therefore concentrate on what is not being done that should be done under the terms of the lease.

                    As others have stated you can apply to the FtT for appointment of a manager, alternatively you could do the ground work and then put your observations to the other leaseholders demonstrating how if a manager was appointed by the FtT it would impact on them financially moving forwards.

                    A link to appointing a manager:

                    https://decisions.lease-advice.org/t...decision_type=
                    Thank you yes that is the best advice so that is what I have shared with him and he is now doing this, he is considering asking for a determination by the FTT and about to issue the right notice to the directors to let them know that this is what he intends to do.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by eagle2 View Post
                      The old directors appear to have sold their apartments and are no longer involved so I suggest that you concentrate on the new directors and provide them with a list of suggestions in order of priority and let them have a reasonable amount of time to comply with the request.
                      Great idea, I shall share this and thank you

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Macromia View Post
                        I don't think that I'd want to rush into trying to appoint a manager in this case (unless there is work that urgently needs doing and isn't being arranged).

                        Does this leaseholder have at least a passable relationship with any of the other leaseholders? If he does, he would likely do far better forgetting about challenging the directors and (slowly and carefully) trying to gain influence by getting others leaseholders on side.
                        Yes and he could do this for weeks and months and he has been doing this,now his flat is suffering from damp, he wants an agent of the company to come along and view it so he can either get the work done by them or and himself as the damp has damaged his flat, they agreed to him getting the surveyor and paying the costs and details, he provided them with the costs and details, then he asked for times which were convenient to inspect the properties and dates for the surveyor to come, they then went quite on him and the day came for the surveyor to inspect they refused access. So he went ahead and got his own flat surveyed and now had to pay for this himself, they have not inspected his property or the building and come up with he is responsible for his own flat repairs which he knows are all the internal parts up to the plaster. The surveyor has confirmed damp is penetrating and rising damp so he wrote a repairing letter to them and thye have ignored him for weeks again. So he has the option now to get the work done himself and send them the bill or get them to do the work which at this rate is looking longwinded...or go to FTT?

                        Comment


                          #57



                          Originally posted by Stacker View Post
                          ...he has tried and all they do even the new directors is ignore him...lack of maturity and the ability to share are the main issues and its not right that he should be left out this way, he cant change anything as the two directors and their partners are all shareholders so its always going to be four of them to one of him for now.
                          Unfortunately, this isn't going to change quickly (if at all). The leaseholder has three choices:
                          1. Work at changing the way that the other leaseholders think of him, however long it takes.
                          2. Accept that, whatever action he takes, they will always consider him to be in the wrong - and they will resent him if he manages to force change.
                          3. Sell up.

                          I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "the directors and their partners are all shareholders so it's always going to be four of them to one of him for now". If the directors each jointly own one flat with their partners, they should only have two votes in a shareholders meeting against the leaseholders one (and other leaseholders will also have one vote per flat (it might be different if the flats are different in size and have different shares of the company in relation to size).


                          Originally posted by Stacker View Post
                          Its pointless so as its been suggested here, I have shared with him that now needs to come from the angle of the Lease so that is why I mentioned his beef with the subletting fees, this is the company's money not the directors, they refuse to pay their admin fees which belong to the company and then want to charge everyone for alleged company solicitors fees for a shareholder dispute with him which they cant do, CH fees and D&O insurance and building insurance has gone up because the flats are sublet....they cant have it both ways...the shareholders are not responsible for any of these fees and it is never discussed just imposed...they even allowed pets when its against the Lease.
                          It may well be the case that neither the lease, or the companies articles, allow legal fees to be collected (and in a "shareholder dispute" the lease would potentially be irrelevant - unless what you are referring to was actually a freeholder/leaseholder dispute). It sounds like you are saying that company expenses are being included as service charge costs, which is almost certainly something that won't be allowed for in the lease (unless the leases were set up as 'share of freehold company'), but the company articles might allow shareholders to be billed if costs are incurred.
                          If company costs cannot be recovered from shareholders, the directors will have to pay these themselves or ask for voluntary donations. If collecting fees connected to subletting means other shareholders are contributing the directors may decide to enforce these, but if they are the only ones paying it makes little difference whether they collect the subletting fees or not.
                          Subletting fees would be company money, not service charge money, so would not affect the share of buildings insurance each leaseholder pays, even if they were collected.
                          If the lease gives a right to collect subletting fees this does not automatically mean that the fees must be collected, similarly there may not be any obligation for a 'no pets' clause to be imposed - it depends on the specific wording in the lease.




                          Originally posted by Stacker View Post
                          ...his flat is suffering from damp, he wants an agent of the company to come along and view it so he can either get the work done by them or and himself as the damp has damaged his flat, they agreed to him getting the surveyor and paying the costs and details, he provided them with the costs and details, then he asked for times which were convenient to inspect the properties and dates for the surveyor to come, they then went quite on him and the day came for the surveyor to inspect they refused access. So he went ahead and got his own flat surveyed and now had to pay for this himself, they have not inspected his property or the building and come up with he is responsible for his own flat repairs which he knows are all the internal parts up to the plaster. The surveyor has confirmed damp is penetrating and rising damp so he wrote a repairing letter to them and thye have ignored him for weeks again. So he has the option now to get the work done himself and send them the bill or get them to do the work which at this rate is looking longwinded...or go to FTT?
                          This is the issue that needs addressing, and potentially can be addressed, but needs to be addressed as a leaseholder/freeholder dispute (the arguments about shareholders and directors won't help).

                          An application to appoint a manager would hopefully help get maintenance up to scratch, but will definitely not help with the relationship with the directors/other leaseholders - and eventually a tribunal appointed manager would expect to hand control back to the RMC.
                          What would the leaseholder expect to do to prevent things going back to exactly the same situation, or worse, after a couple of years had passed?


                          Comment


                            #58
                            I recommend that your friend reconsiders very carefully, there is no mileage in applying to the FTT if the amounts involved are de minimis or if the FTT does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matters. He should prioritise, concentrate on the significant elements and give the directors a reasonable time to deal with those matters.. He is not in a position to apply for a manager to be appointed until he has given the new directors a reasonable opportunity to deal with those items.

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by eagle2 View Post
                              The old directors appear to have sold their apartments and are no longer involved so I suggest that you concentrate on the new directors and provide them with a list of suggestions in order of priority and let them have a reasonable amount of time to comply with the request.
                              This has been done Eagle and they dont want to hear what needs to be done because they think they know best so he has now given up..he said he will no give them enough rope to hang themselves!!!!

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X