Disputes with present freeholder

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

    #16
    Originally posted by Macromia View Post

    It is possible that you should have at least been told that sale of the freehold was being considered before this went ahead...

    In some cases it might be reasonable for the freeholder of a building to bear some of the costs of work themselves, but usually it will be fair for all leaseholders to contribute their relevant proportion.
    I understand your points Macromia, unfortunately, the present freeholder is not reliable. I wasn't informed by the housing association (former landlord) for the sale of freehold at all. I received a letter that informed me of the change of freehold from the present freeholder after the sale had been completed. I was shocked.

    I am charged to pay equally regardless of the number of bedrooms of each flat, but in units. All other flats in the block are two/three bedrooms and only mine is one bedroom flat. Do you think it is fair?

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by hexu View Post
      ...unfortunately, the present freeholder is not reliable.
      Sadly this is too often the case - but the correct action in response to 'unreliable' freeholders is to take appropriate action relative to specific failures.
      In this case, if major works are the issue, the relevant action is likely to be to challenge the reasonableness or quality of the works (and if section 20 consultation has not been carried out, this might be relevant if you can show that consultation would have raised issues/suggestions that were not considered by the freeholder).



      Originally posted by hexu View Post
      I wasn't informed by the housing association (former landlord) for the sale of freehold at all. I received a letter that informed me of the change of freehold from the present freeholder after the sale had been completed. I was shocked.
      You don't need to be notified prior to the sale of a freehold unless the right of first refusal exists (which depends on a number of criteria, so may not have been applicable to your building. The new freeholder seems to have correctly notified you of their purchase after the sale.
      If you should have been offered right of first refusal but this wasn't done, you still don't have any right to prevent the sale of the freehold. What you might now have is the opportunity to force the new freeholder to sell the freehold to you (or perhaps jointly to a group of qualifying leaseholders) for the same premium that they paid.



      Originally posted by hexu View Post
      I am charged to pay equally regardless of the number of bedrooms of each flat, but in units. All other flats in the block are two/three bedrooms and only mine is one bedroom flat. Do you think it is fair?
      Leasehold is not necessarily fair. What matters is what your lease says regarding the proportions of service charges that are payable for each property.
      You would probably have a good argument if your lease states that each flat should pay "a reasonable proportion", or "a fair proportion", and would definitely have a case to argue if the lease states that the proportion payable is to be based on property size or value, but if your lease states that all flats pay the same towards service charges you have no argument (in the latter case you can likely only challenge the proportion if the total of all proportions payable doesn't add up to 100%).

      Comment


        #18
        Thanks Macromia,

        The whole experience is painful. Because of the change of freehold, my life has been disturbed badly.

        Without any notification, the housing association sold the freehold to the present freeholder. The previous agreement about the stock transfer cap between the Council and the Housing Association didn't apply. Major works cost from £5K to £10K.

        Section 20 consultation has been served, but my observation was not considered by the present freeholder at all. For example, my lease states that each flat should pay "a fair proportion", but the freeholder (also act as leaseholders) charged me equally regardless of the size of my flat.

        Even worse, my liability to pay for insurance is limited to the Reserved Property under the lease, but the freeholder charged me for a contribution to the insurance of the whole building.

        Regardless of the lease and previous agreement, the present freeholder kept sending me bills as the way he wants. To look at the bill, I can hardly pay for a solicitor. But if I have to put up with a bad landlord, how can I sell my flat as the way he charges service is not the same as the lease?

        Comment


          #19
          They don't have to agree with your observations, but if they don't, they do have to explain why they are ignoring them.

          You may well have a valid case against them even if they have followed the consultation process.

          Comment


            #20
            You will have to tell us how "Reserved Property" is defined. However, if the lease does not require you to pay a proportion of the whole building insurance, there is a good chance that it is defective, and a change could be forced to bring it in line with what is actually happening. Some group of people have to be responsible for 100% of the building insurance. If the freeholder has bought a liability to pay part of it from his own pocket, he has bought a lemon.

            Housing associations are immune from the first refusal rule on freehold sales, although, in this case, they had a moral duty to behave as though they weren't.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by hexu View Post
              The whole experience is painful. Because of the change of freehold, my life has been disturbed badly.
              I can sympathise with you to some degree as I understand how it can be difficult to deal with demands for payments that are considered unreasonable for some reason (whether or not they actually are unreasonable is another matter).
              It may be that you have previously been 'protected' from paying what is actually a fair share, but that doesn't make increased payments any easier to bear.


              Originally posted by hexu View Post
              Without any notification, the housing association sold the freehold to the present freeholder.
              If I was you I would forget about this because it doesn't sound like you could have purchased the freehold yourself if you had been given the right of first refusal (which is the only reason notification has to be given).
              The freehold to my block was also sold without notification (after I had won a tribunal case against the previous freeholder which was based on a lack of maintenance of the building), but there is no point in contesting this because there is no way that I could have found the amount that was paid for the freehold, and I would also find it very difficult to pay for maintenance in advance before later reclaiming the cost from leaseholders (the leases of the residential parts do not allow for advanced payment of service charges).


              Originally posted by hexu View Post
              The previous agreement about the stock transfer cap between the Council and the Housing Association didn't apply. Major works cost from £5K to £10K.
              This seems to have been an arrangement that was highly advantageous to you, and resulted in it being likely that you were paying less than your fair share of costs.
              Whether or not this arrangement is compulsory on all freeholders depends on the precise wording of your lease and the legal status of any documents that contain the arrangement. I would wonder who has to pay the rest of the costs of major works if what you pay does have to be capped at £5000 - surely you can understand that it wouldn't be fair if this had to be shared by other leaseholders?


              Originally posted by hexu View Post
              Section 20 consultation has been served, but my observation was not considered by the present freeholder at all. For example, my lease states that each flat should pay "a fair proportion", but the freeholder (also act as leaseholders) charged me equally regardless of the size of my flat.
              You may well have a legitimate argument here, and could potentially take the freeholders to tribunal to dispute the way that they are apportioning service charges.
              It is likely that a tribunal would find it reasonable for some costs to be apportioned equally regardless of the size of a flat, but would expect other costs to be split differently. They would usually also accept a single proportion of the total charges for the block if the freeholder could justify how this has accounted for the size of the flat and the fact that some charges should be split equally.


              Originally posted by hexu View Post
              Even worse, my liability to pay for insurance is limited to the Reserved Property under the lease, but the freeholder charged me for a contribution to the insurance of the whole building.
              The exact wording used in your lease will be important here, but I would say that it is almost always best for blocks to be insured as a single building under one policy. I think that it would be considered reasonable to consider the insurance for your property to be a proportion of the insurance for the whole building (how that proportion is calculated is the important consideration).


              Originally posted by hexu View Post
              Regardless of the lease and previous agreement, the present freeholder kept sending me bills as the way he wants. To look at the bill, I can hardly pay for a solicitor. But if I have to put up with a bad landlord, how can I sell my flat as the way he charges service is not the same as the lease?
              There are legal requirements that have to be adhered to for service charge demands. If these are not met (e.g. freeholder's address provided, Summary of Tenant's Rights and Obligations not enclosed) then no payment has to be made. However, failure to meet the legal requirements in this way will usually only delay payment as payment will become due when the demands are correctly issued in the future.
              If charges genuinely don't comply with the lease you have a choice of either withholding payment (potentially risky unless you really are certain that you are correct - and a court or tribunal later agrees with you) or paying and then contesting the payments later at a tribunal.

              Unfortunately the system favours the freeholder. If you start a claim yourself you have to pay application and hearing fees upfront (and may not be able to get these paid back, even if you win) and will also have to pay the costs of preparing printed 'document bundles' for the hearing (at least six copies) + the postage or other costs of delivering these and your own costs associated with attending a hearing. Your costs, even without paid legal advice, could easily come to over £400 or £500.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
                ... if the lease does not require you to pay a proportion of the whole building insurance, there is a good chance that it is defective, and a change could be forced to bring it in line with what is actually happening.

                Housing associations are immune from the first refusal rule on freehold sales, although, in this case, they had a moral duty to behave as though they weren't.
                I have paid two solicitors to read my lease, and the former landlords did the same as the lease states. How can I bring it in line with the present landlord if he doesn't want to accept it and keep sending me the wrong bills?

                Yes the housing association failed to apply their moral duty...let it go or report it?

                Comment


                  #23
                  You would have to get a ruling from the FTT. However, if the lease doesn't allow for adequate funding of insurance, expect a counter claim to change the lease.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Macromia View Post

                    If I was you I would forget about this because it doesn't sound like you could have purchased the freehold yourself if you had been given the right of first refusal (which is the only reason notification has to be given).

                    This seems to have been an arrangement that was highly advantageous to you, and resulted in it being likely that you were paying less than your fair share of costs.

                    You may well have a legitimate argument here, and could potentially take the freeholders to tribunal to dispute the way that they are apportioning service charges.

                    If charges genuinely don't comply with the lease you have a choice of either withholding payment (potentially risky unless you really are certain that you are correct - and a court or tribunal later agrees with you) or paying and then contesting the payments later at a tribunal.

                    Unfortunately the system favours the freeholder. If you start a claim yourself you have to pay application and hearing fees upfront ...
                    The reason I keep mentioning a notification of change of freehold, it's because I could question the stock transfer cap with the housing association (former landlord) before they started the selling process. No one needs to suffer the costs, it's the housing association's duty. But now, resident leaseholders (unfortunately only me, non-resident leaseholders who rent out their property won't be eligible for the stock transfer cap) became the victim, not even given an apology. It happened quietly.

                    I have paid two solicitors to read my lease (why do I have to pay for his mistakes?!) and suggested me to stop corresponding with the present freeholder. He can refer to the tribunal. But instead of the tribunal, he kept sending bills and knocking my door for money years and years. He said he will go to court and start processing if I don't pay in full as he asked.

                    I cannot afford more for solicitors. I want to stop corresponding with him, but he kept calling me. It is so stressful.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by hexu View Post
                      The reason I keep mentioning a notification of change of freehold, it's because I could question the stock transfer cap with the housing association (former landlord) before they started the selling process. No one needs to suffer the costs, it's the housing association's duty. But now, resident leaseholders (unfortunately only me, non-resident leaseholders who rent out their property won't be eligible for the stock transfer cap) became the victim, not even given an apology. It happened quietly.
                      Somebody has to 'suffer' the costs.
                      If work needs to be done on a building, and the cost will be £10,000 for a leaseholder once the total costs have been shared according to the terms of the lease, but the leaseholders contribution is capped at £5000, the remainder has to come from somewhere (other leaseholders, the freeholder, the government etc.) or the contractor will not be paid in full and therefore will suffer the cost himself.
                      I wouldn't consider you to be a 'victim' here, I would say that it is more a case that you are now being asked to pay your full contribution, like the non-resident leaseholders you mention, instead of having the benefit of having your costs subsidised by the housing association (which probably means that it was a cost to taxpayers).


                      Originally posted by hexu View Post
                      I have paid two solicitors to read my lease (why do I have to pay for his mistakes?!) and suggested me to stop corresponding with the present freeholder. He can refer to the tribunal. But instead of the tribunal, he kept sending bills and knocking my door for money years and years. He said he will go to court and start processing if I don't pay in full as he asked.

                      I cannot afford more for solicitors. I want to stop corresponding with him, but he kept calling me. It is so stressful.
                      If solicitors have read your lease and told you that you are being incorrectly billed, it is presumably the case that you are either (i) being billed for sums that the lease does not allow to be collected, (ii) being charged a proportion that is considered unreasonable, or (iii) the demands do not meet the correct legal requirements so can be disregarded until corrected (in this case the full amount may become payable at a later date).

                      If you have been advised to stop corresponding with the freeholder and to wait for him to go to tribunal, you should have been told exactly why the demands did not need to be paid - so what did your solicitors say?
                      Not paying demands without knowing precisely why you don't need to pay is extremely risky, and unlikely to go well if you end up at a tribunal - especially if the freeholder has been chasing these debts for years.
                      At the very least you need to make sure that any amounts that have been properly demanded and are not in dispute have been paid. The advice would usually be to pay by cheque and to write on the back (and in an accompanying letter) precisely what part of the sums demanded the payment was for, and that the cheque is only to be cashed if accepted for that part of the demands. Keep a copy of the letter and photos of both sides of the cheque.

                      You should start recording the details of every time that the freeholder comes to your door or contacts you, and if you are certain that you don't owe anything you should tell him that you consider the visits to constitute harassment and may take legal action if he doesn't stop - although this may just prompt him to start legal action himself.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Thank you all, it's helpful.

                        Building insurance, proportion and the stock transfer cap are my main disputes with the present landlord sadly.

                        - Building insurance. It is simply being incorrectly billed. The demand does not meet the requirements under the lease. But the present landlord doesn't accept it.

                        - Proportion. It is mentioned as "a fair proportion" in the lease, the present landlord and I considered it differently.

                        - The stock transfer cap. I realised it recently and I can't afford to pay more for legal advice. I would be grateful if you know anywhere offers free legal advice?

                        I wonder what is the difference between tribunal and court? Why does he only consider court, not tribunal?

                        Comment


                          #27
                          The Leasehold Advisory Service can probably give you free advice on the insurance and apportionment issues, but may struggle on those relating to the conveyancing between council and and housing association and housing association and current freeholder. They won't be able to do anything without the exact texts of all the relevant documents that we have been asking for on this thread.

                          My guesses are:

                          insurance - one way or another you will end up having to pay your fair share of the full building insurance - it is possible a request will be made to have the lease changed, if it is incompatible with this;

                          apportionment - it will cost you to have the tribunal to rule on this and it may not end up in your favour;

                          service charge cap from stock transfer agreement - my suspicion is that ceased to exist when the transfer to the current freeholder was done.

                          The County Court can force you to pay, but are not experts are leases and property maintenance. The tribunal can't force you to pay, but can say what you should pay. In simple cases of can't pay, won't pay, the County Court is the easy and appropriate route.

                          If you choose to challenge court action, your defence should be that the charges are unreasonable and you should ask for the tribunal to brought in.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by hexu View Post
                            - Building insurance. It is simply being incorrectly billed. The demand does not meet the requirements under the lease. But the present landlord doesn't accept it.
                            How are the requirements of the lease not being met? And what did the solicitors you paid say regarding this?
                            The fact that you don't think that the insurance meets the requirements of the lease doesn't necessarily mean that you are correct.


                            Originally posted by hexu View Post
                            - Proportion. It is mentioned as "a fair proportion" in the lease, the present landlord and I considered it differently.
                            What you consider to be "a fair proportion" is likely to be unimportant. What will matter is whether the freeholder can show that they have given consideration to what is fair, and how well they can justify the way they arrived at that proportion.


                            Originally posted by hexu View Post
                            - The stock transfer cap. I realised it recently and I can't afford to pay more for legal advice. I would be grateful if you know anywhere offers free legal advice?
                            I find it hypocritical that you are arguing that the proportion that you are being charged is not a fair proportion, while at the same time you are arguing that your contribution should be limited, even if the fair proportion would be more than the capped limit.

                            It is possible that a limit to your service charge contribution is written into your lease, or into some sort of legal paperwork that does make it binding on the new freeholder, and, if that is the case, the new freeholder cannot charge you more than the stated amount. If there is a cap of this sort in place, the freeholder will find it very difficult to maintain the building properly.

                            The Leasehold Advisory Service, C.A.B., and perhaps The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership are probably your best bets for free legal advice, but in all cases (and if you pay for legal advice) you would be best off knowing exactly what you want to know before you approach them.


                            Originally posted by hexu View Post
                            I wonder what is the difference between tribunal and court? Why does he only consider court, not tribunal?
                            Based on what you have said, and the details of your lease that you have revealed (very limited in both cases), I would expect that he is threatening court rather than tribunal because he thinks that will be the best way to get you to pay up.
                            If his intention is to try to pursue forfeiture of your lease, which might be a possibility, he may not realise that he is likely to need a tribunal decision first.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Macromia View Post
                              How are the requirements of the lease not being met? And what did the solicitors you paid say regarding this?
                              The fact that you don't think that the insurance meets the requirements of the lease doesn't necessarily mean that you are correct.

                              I find it hypocritical that you are arguing that the proportion that you are being charged is not a fair proportion, while at the same time you are arguing that your contribution should be limited, even if the fair proportion would be more than the capped limit.

                              The Leasehold Advisory Service, C.A.B., and perhaps The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership are probably your best bets for free legal advice, but in all cases (and if you pay for legal advice) you would be best off knowing exactly what you want to know before you approach them.
                              Not in a good mood these days..thinking of selling the flat, but have been told I can lose buyers with the disputes.

                              My liability to pay for insurance is limited to the Reserved Property under the lease, but the present freeholder charged me for a contribution to the insurance of the whole building. Former freeholders did the same as the lease states, but the present freeholder didn't.

                              No matter the Stock Transfer Cap or the size of my flat, I should be considered to pay less than the others. I don't understand why you find it hypocritical rather than unfair?

                              Thank you for suggesting the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, Macromia. Waiting for their response (Do they normally take long to reply?)

                              I don't know how the Tribunal would consider the disputes of the Stock Transfer Cap and apportionment, but the way of charging building insurance is wrong without a doubt.

                              What I find hard is the present freeholder doesn't do as the lease states and keeps harassing me for money. I don't feel stay at home as I don't know when he would come to knock my door. I feel disgusted to face him or speak to him. I do hope he can go to the Tribunal, but he won't. He did mention the Court, but he hasn't. Keeping sending incorrect bills that all he has done in the last five years. I have paid solicitors and even the solicitors told me to stop corresponding with him as he didn't take seriously with the lease. I used up my money for legal advice and couldn't afford more, but what are my options to do with this rogue?

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by hexu View Post
                                Not in a good mood these days..thinking of selling the flat, but have been told I can lose buyers with the disputes.
                                The likelihood is that any potential buyer would either reduce the offer price by how ever much the total disputed sum is, or (probably more likely) expect this sum of money to be retained by their solicitors to be used to pay the disputed charges if they were eventually deemed payable.
                                Some buyers would potentially be put off by the mere fact that there were recent disputes because they wouldn't want to buy a property where there was a likelihood that they would end up having to dispute costs. If costs are unfair/unreasonable, you might be better off getting all issues resolved, one way or another, before attempting to sell - although this may cost you.


                                Originally posted by hexu View Post
                                My liability to pay for insurance is limited to the Reserved Property under the lease, but the present freeholder charged me for a contribution to the insurance of the whole building. Former freeholders did the same as the lease states, but the present freeholder didn't.
                                The precise wording of your lease would be important here, and without seeing that no way can say if you are correct (and whether or not the lease may be defective if you are).
                                Who does the lease make responsible for arranging insurance?
                                If the freeholder is responsible, the way that the lease is written might make buying a single policy for the whole building, and then splitting the cost between the leaseholders a reasonable way of having them pay what would be appropriate for their 'reserved properties' - it may even work out cheaper for each leaseholder to do things this way.


                                Originally posted by hexu View Post
                                No matter the Stock Transfer Cap or the size of my flat, I should be considered to pay less than the others. I don't understand why you find it hypocritical rather than unfair?
                                These are two separate issues that should be argued separately.

                                What constitutes a 'reasonable proportion', of the total service charges for the building, to be paid in respect of your flat is the first issue. If your lease states that "a reasonable proportion" is payable, the freeholder is allowed to decide the method by which that proportion should be calculated (unless the lease states otherwise). You would need to ask them to explain the way that they have decided what proportion you should pay, and you can then challenge this if you consider it to be unreasonable and don't think that the freeholder can justify this method.

                                Having your service charge contribution capped at a maximum of £5000 (or any other amount) will, in my opinion, always be unreasonable if you own the property - because it means that someone else has to make up the shortfall, or else other residents have to suffer from repairs not being done because of funding problems. If the reasonable costs of your share of the service charge come to more than £5000, then that is what you should ethically pay (although it is possible that your lease does unfairly limit your contribution).


                                Originally posted by hexu View Post
                                Thank you for suggesting the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, Macromia. Waiting for their response (Do they normally take long to reply?)
                                I have no idea how long they take to reply I'm afraid - or even if they always reply.


                                Originally posted by hexu View Post
                                I don't know how the Tribunal would consider the disputes of the Stock Transfer Cap and apportionment, but the way of charging building insurance is wrong without a doubt.
                                You won't really know what the decision would be for any of these without going to a tribunal. Even if the insurance isn't being charged how you think it should be, it may be that it is decided that the requirements are being met - but if they aren't then you should be able to get a decision that means that you don't have to pay what has been demanded for insurance.
                                It is up to you to decide whether to withhold payment (potentially very risky and not recommended), or to pay under protest, making it clear that you don't agree that the amounts demanded are payable, and then apply to the tribunal for a determination (if you apply it will cost you time and money, and you will have the burden of proving that the costs are not reasonable).
                                If you don't pay the freeholder will likely eventually take you to court/tribunal, possibly trying for forfeiture of the lease, and you might end up having to pay substantial legal fees in addition to any service charges they claim are owed if you lose (depending on how the freeholder decides to pursue the claim).


                                Originally posted by hexu View Post
                                What I find hard is the present freeholder doesn't do as the lease states and keeps harassing me for money. I don't feel stay at home as I don't know when he would come to knock my door. I feel disgusted to face him or speak to him. I do hope he can go to the Tribunal, but he won't. He did mention the Court, but he hasn't. Keeping sending incorrect bills that all he has done in the last five years. I have paid solicitors and even the solicitors told me to stop corresponding with him as he didn't take seriously with the lease. I used up my money for legal advice and couldn't afford more, but what are my options to do with this rogue?
                                If I was you, and I was certain that sums being demanded weren't payable, I would write to the freeholder, stating clearly that I would ignore any future incorrect demands for payment and that I would treat any further visits to my home pursuing incorrectly demanded sums as harassment and that I would be taking legal advice regarding this.

                                As I have said, withholding any payment is risky unless you really are certain that the sums are not payable under the terms of your lease. However, if you wish to try to force the freeholder to go to court (giving them the burden of proof) this is a risk that you may have to take.
                                From the details that you have revealed, I would not personally take the risk of not paying - and I'm not sure that I'd consider it worth making a tribunal application myself.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                • Request to appeal an FTT decision
                                  vmart
                                  Hello there

                                  I hope someone can help with answers to the following questions:

                                  1) Where one has legal grounds to appeal an FTT decision, is there a specific form or do you just write to the court providing grounds and requesting leave to appeal within the time limit?
                                  2)...
                                  22-09-2019, 13:40 PM
                                • Reply to Request to appeal an FTT decision
                                  eagle2
                                  Clerical errors can be corrected by the FTT, so it is worth reading carefully the decision and checking that the figures have been adjusted correctly. Sometimes it will fail to amend a figure or calculate the adjustment incorrectly. In these cases, a simple request to the Tribunal will result in an...
                                  22-09-2019, 21:04 PM
                                • Reply to Request to appeal an FTT decision
                                  vmart
                                  Dear all

                                  Thank you....
                                  22-09-2019, 17:37 PM
                                • Reply to Request to appeal an FTT decision
                                  Macromia
                                  The article in the link below describes how you can appeal FTT decisions, including a link to a form that can be used.
                                  http://www.flat-living.co.uk/advice/...-an-ftt-appeal


                                  'Senior Member' on forums like this (or similar 'titles') are usually based on nothing more than...
                                  22-09-2019, 16:18 PM
                                • Property Management bully behaviour
                                  boboligogo
                                  Hi everyone,

                                  I would highly appreciate any contribution to this post.

                                  I'll get straight to the point: I am a leaseholder in a block of 8 flats in Leeds. One of the flats belongs to the Freehold owner (Landlord). Ever since I purchased this property we were dealing with a rather...
                                  18-09-2019, 18:37 PM
                                • Reply to Property Management bully behaviour
                                  eagle2
                                  Whatever the merits of the case, the MA could be much more helpful to the leaseholder, who is quite right, if the charge is not permitted in the lease, there is no obligation to pay it. So it would be in the MA's interests to simply refer to the clause which it is relying upon. A leaseholder has the...
                                  22-09-2019, 16:14 PM
                                • Reply to Request to appeal an FTT decision
                                  eagle2
                                  You need permission from the FTT in order to appeal against a decision and you should contact the FTT stating your grounds for appeal. The FTT will then either consent to or deny the appeal. There would be a fee payable to the Upper Tribunal, details of which would be sent to you if the appeal is allowed....
                                  22-09-2019, 16:03 PM
                                • Reply to Property Management bully behaviour
                                  vmart
                                  Hello

                                  The salient points have been highlighted by others above. I would suggest your next step is to follow Scott22's advice and contact LEASE for free advice providing them with a copy of your lease.

                                  It is highly likely the Managing Agent (MA) is within their rights to charge...
                                  22-09-2019, 14:01 PM
                                • Shared outside tap
                                  Baradavies
                                  I live in a first floor flat, with a strip of garden at the rear. There is currently an outside tap on the side of the house which is only accessible by one ground floor flat.
                                  I want to install an outside tap on the "communal" side of the house, so that we five flats who don't have direct...
                                  21-09-2019, 09:45 AM
                                • Reply to Shared outside tap
                                  eagle2
                                  I recommend that you try to agree a private arrangement with the leaseholder of the ground floor flat. That is much simpler and cost effective than trying to arrange a separate supply....
                                  22-09-2019, 06:34 AM
                                Working...
                                X