Gov Response To Law Commission Report On Leasehold Issues

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

    Gov Response To Law Commission Report On Leasehold Issues

    Gov Response To Leasehold Issues is published here > https://assets.publishing.service.go...Accessible.pdf

    Same old yakkity yak maybe..will anything get done ?...it raises some obvious issues of great concern such as Forfeiture and FHs claiming legal costs..both actions which can bankrupt and ruin the lives of LHs.

    Also good to see theyve spotted an obvious flaw in the current MA Redress scheme where if a FH self manages he isnt currently covered...(as in my case).
    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.

    #2
    As I understand it, actual forfeiture is seen as a last resort by the courts; you pretty much have to be failing to cooperate with the courts for it happen. Item 84 acknowledges that it is only used as a last resort.

    If leases are to be meaningful, someone has to pay the legal costs. In many cases, it is the other leaseholders that benefit from legal action. Although some leases allow them to take direct action against the offending leaseholder, most don't, so the freeholder has to bring the actual legal action, even though they don't get the primary benefit. We live in a world where people don't obey the law unless threatened with enforcement. Item 82 seems to acknowledge this.

    Making all landlords have to belong to redress schemes would mean that share of freehold freeholders would have to belong, even though they have no valid means of funding the fees. The current test is that they do so for profit, which means the profits can be used to fund the scheme fees.

    Comment


      #3
      Not sure if you are playing devils advocate here or do genuinely disagree with points raised ?, seems rather odd for someone called "leaseholder".

      Yes..forfeiture is rarely used BUT it does exist, and its purely one sided..if I breach the lease, the FH cant forfeit my property but he other way round I can only claim damages in the standard way...also even if forfeiture is avoided.its bundled in with a costs clause that again may leave the LH facing large costs..which moves us onto the next point..the report identifies that a LH may still face huge costs even if 100% successful, yes courts/FTT do have powers to temper this but the report identifies this is purely discretionary.

      Making all FHs belong to redress schemes makes perfect sense to me....Im sure it would of helped in my current dispute.
      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
        Very interesting, we are in the process of acquiring freehold and just wonder how it will affect its price going forward.

        Personally, I feel that if you are trying to do a right thing you are always in disadvantage.

        We have a leaseholder who won't do anything unless threatened with some action, freeholder who won't do anything and to get anything done, other leaseholder and I have to pay and pay and pay.

        Our freeholder ignored all the correspondence from us, we only obtained a reply once we asked about buying a freeholfreehold

        Comment


          #5
          As a leaseholder with share of the freehold, the inability to recover costs from non-compliant leaseholders would mean that maintaining compliance with the lease was unfundable, so would not happen. Nowadays, people don't seem to respect contracts and laws which cannot be or are not enforced. Not being able to enforce leases will result in anarchy. There are only three possible sources for funding for share of the freehold. The offender, all the leaseholders, if the lease allows the service charge to be used that way, and the specific leaseholders affected by the offender's actions. I suppose the fourth one is that the leaseholders have to bail out the freeholder, but you can pretty much guarantee that the offender won't help there.

          As I said, even the government response acknowledges that this is a problem.

          Forfeiture is more of a scare tactic for leasehold reform than a real issue. As far as I can see, it only happens when people fail to engage in the legal process, or ignore court rulings. If you don't have it, the last resort has to be a forced sale, but you still need a way of getting someone out if they refuse to sell. Maybe forfeiture could be modified to require that there was compensation for the lost value, although that would need to be done in a way that didn't force adverse cash flow on the freeholder.

          If you do remove forfeiture, you need to provide some other means for, particularly leaseholder owned, freeholders to recover enforcement costs that are currently covered under lease terms based on using forfeiture procedures.

          If we look at another current thread, there is an example of a leaseholder that only ever pays up, or does repairs, when there is a serious threat of legal action. That means that someone has probably paid money to a solicitor, but it hasn't gone to court, so the court can't ward the costs. Is it really fair that the other leaseholders have to pay for those legal costs from service charges, or a whip-round, if the service charge is not allowed.

          Comment


            #6
            Anna's is the case where a leaseholder would rack up legal costs without reaching the point were a court could award them against them.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
              Anna's is the case where a leaseholder would rack up legal costs without reaching the point were a court could award them against them.
              Yes, indeed and we need to pay twice: the legal cost of forcing the freeholder to take the uncomplying leaseholder to court and the cost of legal action.

              however, according to lease freeholder could give a written notice of repairs required and if not done within within a set time frame diligently, then the freeholder can get the builders to carry out the repairs and charge costs back to the leaseholders.

              but it would probably require more legal costs to do it in the right way so not to be awarded £250 for not following section 20 process.

              Comment


                #8
                Anna1985 section 20 only applies to service charges. You have a weird case where there may be no service charges. I think it is still relevant to the argument that freeholders need the ability to recover legal costs, but it is not the usual situation.

                Even if there are service charges, work in default for work that the leaseholder is supposed to do is outside the section 20 regime, because the leaseholder has full control over the contract by simply complying with the lease.

                The £250 is not something that is awarded, but rather a, now theoretical, cap on the service charge. A piece of case law, a few years ago, means that the actual cap is what the leaseholder might reasonably have had to pay if they had had an opportunity to comment on the proposed work,remembering that they do not have a veto on the work, or the contractor.

                Comment


                  #9

                  We would need to seek further legal advice if and when we buy the freehold to move the repairs forward.

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X