Waiving right to forfeiture for breaches relating to non-payment of Service Charges

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

    #31
    AndrewDod -

    My understanding is leaseholders are entitled to see proof of expenditure under s.21. (The leaseholder has not even followed the formal steps for that). However, I have provided him with clear evidence that a genuine claim on the insurance has been made. Both excerpts from the ICO advocate only releasing information where a F is legally obliged to do so, not to give L broad rights to see whatever they think might be vaguely relevant to a service charge demand. Or to provide protected information for reasons outside of a clear legal obligation. Whether or not you or I think those details should remain strictly private is completely besides the point. It is about whether another leaseholder would find having those personal details revealed objectionable, under their DPA rights. Breaching the rights of another leaseholder won't exactly lead to good outcomes either.

    I indeed suspect that he may want to see details of the claims to assess the validity of it. But, I cannot apply a broad brush to every potentially disclosable document just because a leaseholder thinks they are entitled to see it (when they may not be). On the other hand, if it is necessary to disclose those documents under a clear legal obligation, say because an FTT finds it relevant, then I would have no problems with doing so and I would explain it to the other leaseholder/s whose information is being disclosed.

    The point of this thread was to enquire about how to prevent waiving of any right to forfeiture for historical arrears.

    You have been determined to make the point that I do not need any legal help, and to make the thread about that and I have tried to make the point that I think it would assist. I think there is a point at which it becomes inappropriate for me to try to continue to justify to you my reasoning on that. You're obviously very confident in using the tribunal/court process. I am not. I was not asking your opinion on that, and I do not know why you think it is so important that I do not use legal assistance, but you have decided to make the thread entirely about that, which I honestly think is what has muddied the waters. That, and of course discussions on the rights and wrongs of providing certain insurance documents etc.

    Comment


      #32
      leaseholder64 - I was a leaseholder (still am) in the property. Took over the freehold too because in my specific circumstances it was a good investment (I thought). Also thought it was the previous freeholder that was the problem, rather than a problem lessee. Now I'm not so sure. But, I have often wondered exactly how professional freeholders investing in leasehold properties have calculated it to be a sound commercial investment.

      Comment


        #33
        I still struggling to think of examples where exact details of an insurance claim made under a communal policy (and which should legitimately be progressed under that policy) would "Breach the rights of another leaseholder" - enlighten us with the details of what is asked for in terms of those precise details and has not been provided. Otherwise this is all just theoretical fluff. The lessee clearly wants to see something. You are resisting providing it and hiding behind DPA. You imagine this will end well. It will not.

        There is nothing at all stopping you from using legal assistance. The question (you have) is whether anyone other than yourself should pay for that, and if so who that should be. You want to achieve the position that the lessee should pay and want to achieve that via a fortfeiture route regardless of immediate liability to pay. You gave an example from the past which guides what you want to avoid, and I explained why you are misleading yourself.

        I think this conversation is closed.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by cday356 View Post
          leaseholder64 - I was a leaseholder (still am) in the property. Took over the freehold too because in my specific circumstances it was a good investment (I thought). Also thought it was the previous freeholder that was the problem, rather than a problem lessee. Now I'm not so sure. But, I have often wondered exactly how professional freeholders investing in leasehold properties have calculated it to be a sound commercial investment.
          All questions have now been answered. You made a bad investment. Live with it.

          I suggest you employ a high quality and expensive managing agent before you get taken to tribunal to have an even more expensive manager imposed.

          Comment


            #35
            A lot of them seem to rely on overcharging for administration fees, e.g. license to alter or licences to sub-let, and for that matter, s146 costs. Often they don't have a right to the fee or they don't have a right to the amount they claim.

            For non-payments, you get examples of them charging four figure legal fees for three figure debts.

            I think a lot of what you are getting on this thread is the result of people reacting to the tactics of such companies by trying to completely remove the threat of forfeiture and the ability to recover enforcement costs.

            Many leases are currently not financially viable without the ability to recover costs even without going to court, but, like any mechanism to cover one problem people will find ways of abusing it to make money.

            Although the initial premium for a lease is large, the temptation is always to spend that within the first few months, rather than investing it and using it to manage the lease. The number of leases where a long view is being taken after even 20 years must be vanishingly small. That's why one really needs inflation linked ground rents, but abuses of escalating ground rents means that there are moves to abolish those as well

            Comment


              #36
              Thanks, that's interesting.

              Comment


                #37
                I think you are talking too much, I would be applying in person for tribunal to make establish if there is a breach of lease and would then proceed with s146.

                Too much talking and not near enough action.

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X