Secret commissions

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

    #76
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

    But that's what ground rents are for (in part) ...... If a lessee owned company decided not to collect ground rents, that would be their hard lines. In the case of RMC, there is an issue if the Freeholder is being passed ground rents -- but then the legislation relating to RMC is defective and ill considered -- and this is one of many reasons why. By the way there are a host of other company expenses which are not service charges nor covered by insurance (like if the Directors fail to file with Companies House and get fined. A conventional freeholder is not covered against his own follies and private expenditure and the same should apply here. What would you suggest should be the case if only 3 of 6 lessees were shareholders in the freehold Company -- that the non shareholders should cover company expenses.......
    I agree with much of what you said here.

    Yes, hypothetically, the costs of running a leaseholder run management company should be covered by ground rents, or by passing a company resolution requiring shareholders to contribute to the all company costs (I would exclude fines due to directors failing to perform their duties properly from this, but would include insurance that covers directors for decisions that were made with the right intentions but ultimately turn out to be flawed - and yes, I realise that this is likely to also cover them for many less well intended decisions).

    As you say yourself, the legislation covering RMC's (under some circumstances) is already not really fit for purpose, and if proposals to abolish ground rents, or fix them at low amounts, go ahead, leaseholder run management companies will need an alternative way to pay costs because otherwise no one will be willing to take on the role of director.
    I really don't see any reason at all why it wouldn't be fair to pass legislation allowing reasonable costs to be included as part of the service charges. Even non-shareholder/non-member leaseholders benefit from having their building managed, and if unreasonable company costs were put through the service charges, these can be challenged in the same way as other service charge costs.

    Once again, I am aware that management company costs are usually not allowed for by the terms of most leases (except perhaps leases that included a management company when they were written), but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered reasonable these costs (which will usually be insignificant, especially when compared to the cost of 'professional' managing agents) to be recouped through the service charges.

    I wonder how many of the people who refuse to pay a contribution to the costs of a management company, including D&O insurance, would be happy if no one was prepared to act as a director and consequently their building had no management at all?

    In is possible for a course of action to be legally correct but, at the same time, to be the wrong course of action to take.

    Comment


      #77
      False statements directors chose not to declare business run at property/omitted facts when it suited them not performing duties and obligations hiding behind corporate veil, claim ignorance of facts, taking undue risks with the money of others has consequences- disqualification.

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by Stacker View Post
        False statements directors chose not to declare business run at property/omitted facts when it suited them not performing duties and obligations hiding behind corporate veil, claim ignorance of facts, taking undue risks with the money of others has consequences- disqualification.
        I agree - and if this is the problem, then your best course of action would be to get the directors replaced with new directors who will provide better performance.

        However, if you expect people to take on full responsibility and potentially accept the financial costs involved with the running of the company as well as potentially leaving themselves open to being sued personally for any mistakes (paying for any insurance against this risk themselves), then don't expect many people who actually understand leasehold law to volunteer.

        Comment


          #79
          Macromia,

          Macromania I am not sure if you are aware but I have mentioned it before, it is nigh on impossible to remove them...they know this and I have no intention of paying for and insuring a director and fellow shareholder for acting in their own interests and hoping the insurance will cover it meaning D&O insurance.. Also if there was a shareholder dispute which is brewing I am not again paying for their insurance should they lose the case! If they were half decent and any good they wouldn't need insurance.

          Comment


            #80
            D&O insurance doesn't cover negligence. It's, unfortunately, rapidly become a necessity of even directors who are well skilled. People who become RMC directors rarely have relevant experience.

            Comment


              #81

              What legal requirement is there to have insurance ?

              Originally posted by Macromia View Post
              What must be provided is the insurance cover that meets all of the requirements given in the lease (and all legal requirements, with legal requirements taking precedence if they contradict the lease), no more, no less.

              Comment


                #82
                Originally posted by Section20z View Post
                What legal requirement is there to have insurance ?
                None, apart from the lease (contract).

                Comment


                  #83
                  Failure to make adequate provisions for insurance is one of the grounds for a forced change to the lease, so I would imagine people would act on the basis that any challenge based on a claim that the lease doens't provide for insurance would result in an application to change the lease with the consequent conveyancing costs on the leaseholders.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
                    D&O insurance doesn't cover negligence. It's, unfortunately, rapidly become a necessity of even directors who are well skilled. People who become RMC directors rarely have relevant experience.
                    If they dont have the experience and are not prepared to attempt to or at least learn the basics then they must pay for the D&O insurance themselves, if it is not recoverable from the Lease or Articles then they cant charge this to the service charge account.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      leaseholder64,

                      All leaseholders have to agree and need 75% agreement, no FTT will agree and impose a cost on a leaseholder which does not benefit ALL.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                        None, apart from the lease (contract).
                        Thank you Andrew, yes its ALL about the Lease so if its not in the Lease you cant charge for it.

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by Section20z View Post
                          What legal requirement is there to have insurance ?


                          Legally building insurance is vital and nothing else unless your lease or the company articles state anything

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
                            D&O insurance doesn't cover negligence. It's, unfortunately, rapidly become a necessity of even directors who are well skilled. People who become RMC directors rarely have relevant experience.
                            So could a director not informing the insurance company on two separate occasions the wrong information be considered negligence?

                            Comment


                              #89
                              So not presenting the facts and misleading an insurance company is seen as FRAUD, invalidating the insurance.

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Originally posted by Stacker View Post

                                All leaseholders have to agree and need 75% agreement, no FTT will agree and impose a cost on a leaseholder which does not benefit ALL.
                                Not for a defective lease. A single party can get a lease changed if the FTT agrees that the lease doesn't make adequate provision for insurance. I was responding to the general point about legislation and insurance. D&O may well not be considered necessary for adequate insurance, but that is a different question.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                • Small claim online
                                  by Anna1985
                                  I have finally submitted the claim online and it is now nearing 14 days since the claim paperwork was delivered and the leaseholder doesn't pick up the post.

                                  Please note the leaseholder doesn't live in the address and didn't provide FHs or our solicitor with his current address.
                                  ...
                                  27-02-2021, 11:39 AM
                                • Reply to Small claim online
                                  by sgclacy
                                  If the land registry records give the address for the lessee as the property, then that is where it must be sent

                                  When you purchase a property on the form AP1 you have to state the address for service. If that is the address he decides to put then you have discharged your responsibilty by...
                                  28-02-2021, 13:44 PM
                                • Service charges for issues dating back multiple years
                                  by london j
                                  Hi all

                                  We have recently been informed of a significant increase in service charge as well as a one off request for funds relating to damage dating back over 5 years.

                                  We have yet to be provided with details of the back dated cost however i have reason to believe it relates to...
                                  28-02-2021, 11:39 AM
                                • Reply to Service charges for issues dating back multiple years
                                  by Callan1
                                  It can be a balancing act - whether to claim or not on your insurance.

                                  Might be worth just paying up assuming you're a member of the RTM...
                                  28-02-2021, 13:27 PM
                                • Reply to Small claim online
                                  by eagle2
                                  I can assure you that I live in the real World and I have seen how these disputes can escalate. The sooner you bring an end to it the better for all leaseholders.
                                  28-02-2021, 12:27 PM
                                • Reply to Service charges for issues dating back multiple years
                                  by eagle2
                                  When was the expenditure incurred ie when did the RTM receive invoice(s) and when was payment made? If the date was more than 18 months ago, you may not have a liability to pay.unless you were given notice at the time.

                                  What action you can take depends on the facts eg why was no claim made...
                                  28-02-2021, 12:14 PM
                                • Reply to Small claim online
                                  by Anna1985
                                  eagle2 , I appreciate that I would not succeed with forfeiture ultimately, if the LL starts paying for maintenance I'll be happy too and if he is made to sell the property - would be amazing.

                                  we are not prevented from anything - the leaseholder does not intend to pay unless he is forced...
                                  28-02-2021, 10:32 AM
                                • Reply to Directors of rmc have breached the s.24 tribunal order to hand over management
                                  by eagle2
                                  When was the notice received? Does it replace the previous notice? Have they complied with Article 28 ?

                                  You are right, there are 4 ordinary shares and each member has 1 vote and may appoint a proxy to vote on his behalf. They seem to be trying to claim more votes on the grounds that they...
                                  28-02-2021, 10:05 AM
                                • Directors of rmc have breached the s.24 tribunal order to hand over management
                                  by SHill
                                  Hi

                                  Can someone give me advise. I have been successful at First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to Appoint a Manager Pursuant to S.24 LTA 1987. The Tribunal appointed a manger but the Directors of the RMC (Respondent) has not comply to handover the information by June 2020.
                                  ...
                                  26-01-2021, 14:15 PM
                                • Reply to Section 20 major works question
                                  by eagle2
                                  You are right to be wary, they can seek to charge you more than your fair share by using their own contractors so you should check their credentials carefully and you are right to seek another quote which will give you an indication whether or not the cost is reasonable.
                                  28-02-2021, 09:26 AM
                                Working...
                                X