Secret commissions

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

  • Stacker
    started a topic Secret commissions

    Secret commissions


  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    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..

    Leave a comment:


  • scot22
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • eagle2
    replied
    Originally posted by Stacker
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by Stacker View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • scot22
    replied
    On another thread I've suggested trying Swarblaw forum which I've found excellent. It has numerous law forums including one on Company law.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Originally posted by Stacker View Post

    What on earth are you trying to say?
    That you are obviously looking to make claims on people's indemnity policies for spurious reasons?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    Warning to anyone wanting to respond: Multiple replicate threads
    No not duplicate...another issue..

    Leave a comment:


  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by JK0 View Post
    Are you trying to pick holes to get your fees reduced? Frankly if my listed building needed a DPC, I would not bother asking the jobsworths for permission either.
    What on earth are you trying to say?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    Warning to anyone wanting to respond: Multiple replicate threads
    Thanks for the warning however dysfunctional company directors is a different subject its company law opposed to lease law about damp and other property issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stacker
    replied
    Originally posted by scot22 View Post
    That's what I think.
    Yes thank you Scot so today I found out about a fab company called TyMawr who offer enviromentally traditional products which I will be buying to help remove the wrong plaster and paint and I have been told about Newton waterproofing which is another good tanking solution for any listed buildings which many Council heritage and conservation officers approve of..

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Sharing cost
    Affinity
    Hello
    I am selling my flat. In order to do so I had to pay for a asbestos certificate which cost me £400+vat.
    Is it fair to ask the other freeholders to share the cost? The building has three flats and we share the freehold.
    Your views are appreciated.
    19-09-2019, 16:51 PM
  • Reply to Sharing cost
    Affinity
    Thanks for your replies.
    The building was build at the end of 19 century and converted into flats in the 80s
    21-09-2019, 12:59 PM
  • Reply to Sharing cost
    eagle2
    I agree, the other 2 leaseholders and joint freeholders should be approached and asked to contribute towards the cost in exchange for a copy of the report which they will need....
    21-09-2019, 11:15 AM
  • Can you forfeit a 999 year lease for renting on Airbnb?
    2019 New Member
    Hi All,

    Can you successfully forfeit / gain possession of a 999 year lease for renting on Airbnb?

    The lease mentions not being allowed to let the apartment for a term less than 6 months and the lease in question is a 999 year lease from 1995.

    Thanks in advance...
    19-09-2019, 07:03 AM
  • Reply to Can you forfeit a 999 year lease for renting on Airbnb?
    scot22
    A shame that consideration for other stakeholders and a general respect for the lease do not appear to have been important.
    21-09-2019, 10:27 AM
  • Reply to Sharing cost
    leaseholder64
    One important point is that the whole case for sharing is based on the fact that the freeholders have failed to perform a statutory duty.

    If the OP wanted something from them that they weren't obliged to have obtained anyway, and which is not something that the lease requires them to provide,...
    21-09-2019, 10:03 AM
  • Reply to Sharing cost
    leaseholder64
    The OP would be writing to himself! He is one third of the freeholder.

    This is a dysfunctional share of the freehold case....
    21-09-2019, 09:21 AM
  • Reply to Sharing cost
    sgclacy
    The success in seeking reimbursement will depend more on the style and approach of your letter than the actual law.

    i would write to the freeholder stating that you commissioned the asbestos report and as a consequence have undertaken a task which they should have undertaken - therefore...
    21-09-2019, 09:05 AM
  • Reply to Sharing cost
    leaseholder64
    The leaseholders are the joint freeholders! If the lease requires the freeholder to pay, there really should have been a formal agreement that freeholder costs be split equally.

    Is this one of these leases that tries to avoid having service charges?

    Worst case is that the joint...
    21-09-2019, 08:37 AM
  • Reply to Sharing cost
    eagle2
    It should be a shared expense payable by the freeholders or leaseholders depending on the wording of the lease. You should try to persuade the others in the block to contribute failing which you may need to threaten legal action.
    21-09-2019, 08:07 AM
Working...
X