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

                                • Reply to First Tier Tribunal - who is the respondent if RTM
                                  by MrSoffit
                                  Sahar The RTMC is the respondent landlord in this instance. Be advised that adding a managing fee to a s20 job is standard, and 10% does not seem unduly unreasonable. As for the relative merits of quotes, the issue with s20 is that you have to prove you have been prejudiced while at the same time cannot...
                                  27-02-2020, 07:43 AM
                                • First Tier Tribunal - who is the respondent if RTM
                                  by Sahar
                                  Hi


                                  I want to get the FTT hearing in relation to section 20 work charges that our MA issued recently.
                                  Not only MA selected a contractor where they are also a director, the quote for works is 50% higher that the cheapest quote obtained, but they also added 10%+VAT "management...
                                  26-02-2020, 20:42 PM
                                • Reply to Variation of lease
                                  by Macromia
                                  If the ground rent in your lease doubled every 20 years the following ground rent would be due:
                                  £150 per year from 2012 to 2031 (compared to ten years of £150 / ten of £225)
                                  £300 per year from 2032 to 2051 (compared to 10x £337.50 / 10x £506.25)
                                  £600 per year from 2052 to...
                                  27-02-2020, 07:15 AM
                                • Variation of lease
                                  by scampicat
                                  I own a flat with a lease of 125 years starting from 2012. The ground rent is at present £150 pa, but increases as follows every ten years: £225... .£337.50.... 506.25.... 759.38.... 1139.06.... 1708.59.... 2562.89 ....3844.34. There are no more increases after eighty years. I am considering a variation...
                                  25-02-2020, 08:57 AM
                                • Reply to First Tier Tribunal - who is the respondent if RTM
                                  by ATC
                                  the respondent must surely be the party for whom the managing agent is acting; I suppose the MA could be co-respondents. Please do spread the word regarding the wrongdoings of your RTM company. Whilst there are people around such as Sebastian Kelly promoting the virtues of RTM and self management, it...
                                  27-02-2020, 00:54 AM
                                • Long Leaseholder's Tenants Refusing Access
                                  by divadee
                                  So after a long long wait to get all the money for some works on the property all done with Section 20 notices. The work commenced on Monday this week. Now work needed to be completed in 3 flats. The work was done in our flat the past few days. The flat opposite us upstairs has since the section 20...
                                  26-02-2020, 20:19 PM
                                • calling EGM - which is up to date RTM Companies (Model Articles) Regulations
                                  by Sahar
                                  hello,

                                  I tried calling an EGM (with the support of required number of leaseholders > 5% ) but got a reply from a MA that directors (1 of them being MA themselves, another one their friend) have reviewed and my request is declined.

                                  Looking for an info which is the current...
                                  07-02-2020, 20:14 PM
                                • Reply to calling EGM - which is up to date RTM Companies (Model Articles) Regulations
                                  by Sahar
                                  thanks MrSoffit, asked them again clarifying that I am after the register as defined in s113, will see what the response is to that.

                                  On another subject, I want to get FTT hearing in relation to section 20 works charges. Not only MA selected a contractor where they are also a director, the...
                                  26-02-2020, 17:41 PM
                                • RTM hand over costs from outgoing managing agent
                                  by Cwhit2020
                                  Hi,

                                  We have taken over the RTM of our small block at the end of January. The only communication we have had so far from the outgoing managing agent has been to send a statement to the company asking for an outstanding amount of around £1000 from a balance of £3000, £2000 of which has...
                                  26-02-2020, 14:27 PM
                                • Reply to RTM hand over costs from outgoing managing agent
                                  by MrSoffit
                                  A laudable sentiment if rather late, what? Your new RTMC is starting with a woeful lack of knowledge in a shark infested sea.

                                  An RTMC starts with a clean slate. It is not a sum of the leaseholders who formed it. It is an indepenedent legal entity, a wonder to behold. It should be cherished...
                                  26-02-2020, 17:31 PM
                                Working...
                                X