1. Does the insurance have to be obtained on a like for like basis? As long as the new insurance meets the requirements within the leases, there is unlikely to be any reason why it has to be on exactly the same basis as insurance that has previously been arranged.
The important consideration is whether or not (a) the building is properly covered against all relevant risks, and (b) the lease has been properly complied with, not what has been done before. If changes that have been made mean that the cost of insurance has increased substantially, there could be an argument made regarding reasonableness, but in this case you would have to decide whether the changes add real value or not
2. More details would be required before any real comment can be made, but if the director is not acting in the best interest of all leaseholders (and deliberately misleading the blocks insurance company would be an example of that) it would seem like it may be worth trying to get the director replaced.
3. Perhaps this was a genuine mistake? If it has now been corrected, that would seem to be a reasonable explanation. It might be worth having a suitably qualified surveyor provide a proper estimate of rebuild costs, if this hasn't already been done.
4. If a leaseholder is running a business from the block this will need to be declared in case it invalidates the insurance. If running a business is allowed, one of the conditions for this should be that the leaseholder running the business pays any increase in the insurance (if applicable, and the leases allow for this).
D&O insurance is a reasonable expense, in my opinion, and one that should be allowed to be included in the service charges of any blocks that are managed by leaseholder run companies. You could argue that this should not be included in the service charges, but would you be prepared to act as a director yourself if you had to pay costs like this out of your own pocket in addition to giving up your time voluntarily? If so, and you feel that this director is not acting in the best interests of leaseholders, why not put yourself up for election to the role in his/her place? Of course, that would mean that you potentially ended up paying a significantly higher contribution to the D&O insurance (if you chose to keep yourself protected), as the cost would be shared between just the directors instead of all leaseholders.
The important consideration is whether or not (a) the building is properly covered against all relevant risks, and (b) the lease has been properly complied with, not what has been done before. If changes that have been made mean that the cost of insurance has increased substantially, there could be an argument made regarding reasonableness, but in this case you would have to decide whether the changes add real value or not
2. More details would be required before any real comment can be made, but if the director is not acting in the best interest of all leaseholders (and deliberately misleading the blocks insurance company would be an example of that) it would seem like it may be worth trying to get the director replaced.
3. Perhaps this was a genuine mistake? If it has now been corrected, that would seem to be a reasonable explanation. It might be worth having a suitably qualified surveyor provide a proper estimate of rebuild costs, if this hasn't already been done.
4. If a leaseholder is running a business from the block this will need to be declared in case it invalidates the insurance. If running a business is allowed, one of the conditions for this should be that the leaseholder running the business pays any increase in the insurance (if applicable, and the leases allow for this).
D&O insurance is a reasonable expense, in my opinion, and one that should be allowed to be included in the service charges of any blocks that are managed by leaseholder run companies. You could argue that this should not be included in the service charges, but would you be prepared to act as a director yourself if you had to pay costs like this out of your own pocket in addition to giving up your time voluntarily? If so, and you feel that this director is not acting in the best interests of leaseholders, why not put yourself up for election to the role in his/her place? Of course, that would mean that you potentially ended up paying a significantly higher contribution to the D&O insurance (if you chose to keep yourself protected), as the cost would be shared between just the directors instead of all leaseholders.
Comment