Secret commissions

[scot22]

On another thread I've suggested trying Swarblaw forum which I've found excellent. It has numerous law forums including one on Company law.

[Lawcruncher]

It should be the surveyor rather than the conveyancer who picks up that the property has a dpc.

It is down to the conveyancer to check the planning title, but what he cannot do is guess what changes have been made to a property. If a conveyancer is told, for example, that a property has an extension, he can make the necessary enquiries.

[AndrewDod]

It should be the surveyor rather than the conveyancer who picks up that the property has a dpc.

It is down to the conveyancer to check the planning title, but what he cannot do is guess what changes have been made to a property. If a conveyancer is told, for example, that a property has an extension, he can make the necessary enquiries.

The OP would already know that from the other multitude of threads he/she has posted on the same scenario/topic (with trivial variation). Time wasted.

[AndrewDod]

See your other thread for lawcruncher's similar response. Moderator2 the various threads (about 4) should probably be merged.

[AndrewDod]

Thanks for sharing that Scot..its an interesting angle ...my damp issues trundles on....

it would appear that in another court case that unless the lease covenants state what needs to be repaired and maintained ie structural foundations and damp then some work could be seen as improvements and some judge said that the freeholder can not expect to be given back an improvement to the property so if damp proofing is not in the lease it may well be classed as an improvement however I am not convinced about that as damp effects the property foundations of the building.

Tanking does not protect the foundations (nor is there any reason it would given the position of application). If anything in can make them worse. Therefore this argument is not a valid one.

[AndrewDod]

And the question is?

Please please do not post any more one liner threads on the same overall scenario, with so little content as to make no feasible meaningful response possible. What does "not insuring properly" mean? See numerous other threads on insurance.

[eagle2]

So it transpires that the directors who are clueless have not been insuring the building properly, exposing us all to financial loss we cant get rid of them as we have a minority shareholder situation.

You appear to have raised the same point in previous threads, the response is likely to be the same.

[scot22]

I think Andrew makes a valid point. You need professional advice from a surveyor ( solicitor ?) well versed in leasehold law.
Tanking is an issue in some of my threads. You end up going round in circles unless you have authoritative opinion which is on the legal AND building issues.

[Stacker]

And the question is?

Please please do not post any more one liner threads on the same overall scenario, with so little content as to make no feasible meaningful response possible. What does "not insuring properly" mean? See numerous other threads on insurance.

Andrew...as a flat owner also trying to help another flat owner we have found that as time goes on more issues are arising and whilst they come under the banner of say insurance, the issues are different hence the different posts so one post was about insurance commission, another was about insurance not being put in place for a building which has suffered movement so this is a different issue...

yes they all come under insurance but they are different issues hence they cant be all posted at once because they come up at different times and now we have another insurance question about running a business which is not allowed and may affect the insurance.

the intention is to get help on different points. Fair enough if all the queries come up at once then they could all be posted as one thread however that has not been the chain of events so far..so hence they have not been posted all at once..