Secret commissions

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

  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by scot22 View Post
    I agree with you. It is at least arguable that this must be done to safeguard the structure of the building. The foundations are of prime importance and must be protected.
    Agree with you Scott

    Leave a comment:


  • scot22
    replied
    I agree with you. It is at least arguable that this must be done to safeguard the structure of the building. The foundations are of prime importance and must be protected.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    I'm afraid it is your responsibility to check the details of the lease in detail. The conveyancer might be expected to deal with off legal terms but not to survey the building.

    You probably need one thread for all this stuff, not many

    Leave a comment:


  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by scot22 View Post
    Jackson v J H Watson 2008

    Held. If the state of the premises was no worse than at the commencement of the lease there was no want of repair.
    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • scot22
    replied
    Jackson v J H Watson 2008

    Held. If the state of the premises was no worse than at the commencement of the lease there was no want of repair.

    Leave a comment:


  • scot22
    replied
    I agree with #2. Had forgotten about previous threads. The situation is more complicated and like many legal issues not clear cut.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
    See OP's previous threads.

    It would be an improvement unless it was the only practical way of repairing original, previously effective, damp proofing that had become defective.
    Thanks for your input...this may be the only practical way to go..however the damp is affecting the building foundations so I am not sure the freeholder is repairing and maintaining the building and protecting everyone's asset if they dont do anything to try to mitigate the issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    Originally posted by scot22 View Post
    Any brief details on the damp could be helpful.
    These are in the OPs many previous threads.

    Leave a comment:


  • scot22
    replied
    I would class this as an improvement. Look at the repairing obligations in the lease. If it states ' in a state of good repair and maintenance ' but does not mention condition then I believe highly unlikely that Freeholder would have to pay for tanking.
    I have done some research on this and a general view seems to be it can make condensation damp worse. Where can it escape ?
    The water in the wall is likely to go elsewhere.
    The Freeholder will be responsible for ensuring the tanking is kept in good repair.
    Any brief details on the damp could be helpful.

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    See OP's previous threads.

    It would be an improvement unless it was the only practical way of repairing original, previously effective, damp proofing that had become defective.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by scot22 View Post
    I would expect you have to pay your share of Company legal costs.

    If not Company could declare bankruptcy and would lose Free hold to the Crown.
    Then the directors and other shareholders need to get their act together and sort the situation out. Breach of director duties of care and due diligence not to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by Macromia View Post
    This sums up the problem with leaseholder 'owned' companies.

    You can sue the company I they are failing to maintain the building, but if you do the other shareholders will also be limited to a liability of £1, and the directors may have limited liability as well.
    This means that taking any legal action against a leaseholder owned company risks bankrupting the company, which could mean that you lose the freehold, and potentially won't recover your own costs.
    You need to weigh up what you have to gain against the potential outcomes.
    What I hope to gain is the repair of the building and to stop any further damage to the building and my flat...

    Leave a comment:


  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by scot22 View Post
    I would expect you have to pay your share of Company legal costs.

    If not Company could declare bankruptcy and would lose Free hold to the Crown.
    The shareholder company liability is a £1 as a shareholder

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by Stacker View Post
    This isn't about who is right and wrong its about doing what they should be doing repairing and maintaining the property in accordance with the lease and if it does go to court no I wont be paying the company costs as they have been negligent and as a shareholder I am only liable for the £1 liability, nothing in articles say I would need to pay the company costs when the directors and company are in breach of contract and not meeting the performance obligations of the lease.
    This sums up the problem with leaseholder 'owned' companies.

    You can sue the company I they are failing to maintain the building, but if you do the other shareholders will also be limited to a liability of £1, and the directors may have limited liability as well.
    This means that taking any legal action against a leaseholder owned company risks bankrupting the company, which could mean that you lose the freehold, and potentially won't recover your own costs.
    You need to weigh up what you have to gain against the potential outcomes.

    Leave a comment:


  • scot22
    replied
    I would expect you have to pay your share of Company legal costs.

    If not Company could declare bankruptcy and would lose Free hold to the Crown.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X