Court charges for flat X debt recovery charged to service charge for all flats

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

    Court charges for flat X debt recovery charged to service charge for all flats

    Hi all

    I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this one but worth checking.

    Our Lease is an old 1980s one which allows the freeholder to on-charge of legal costs to specific leaseholders ONLY in relation to or in contemplation of a S146 forfeiture action.

    However, all residents have received a 'balancing charge' which comprises of, in part, court costs spent in chasing specific leaseholders for non-payment of service / admin charges.

    I do not believe this is allowed by the terms of the lease. Is it Tribunal time?

    #2
    Check the lease to see what may be included within service charge expenditure. it often says that the cost of appointing solicitors is permitted. The freeholder is likely to argue that all costs are taken from the service charge fund and then attempts are made to recover the costs and the service charge fund is credited if and when the costs are recovered.

    If you apply to the FTT, you would need to explain that the charges were unreasonable and that was why leaseholders did not pay them and it was unreasonable of the freeholder to take legal action.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by eagle2 View Post
      Check the lease to see what may be included within service charge expenditure. it often says that the cost of appointing solicitors is permitted. The freeholder is likely to argue that all costs are taken from the service charge fund and then attempts are made to recover the costs and the service charge fund is credited if and when the costs are recovered.

      If you apply to the FTT, you would need to explain that the charges were unreasonable and that was why leaseholders did not pay them and it was unreasonable of the freeholder to take legal action.
      Nothing that I can see. Apart from the covenant to pay for any S146/S147 actions mentioned above, the only other one is a reserve fund plus this:
      1. the fees of the Lessor’s Managing Agents for the collection of the rents of the Flats in the Building and for the general management thereof.
      Would that count?

      Comment


        #4
        No..S146 costs are an admin charge payable but the defaulting leaseholder only. I dont think the paragraph you posted would allow legal costs either, it looks like they can only collect management agent fees (not legal fees), to be able to recover legal costs the lease as to make specific provision.
        Advice given is based on my experience representing myself as a leaseholder both in the County Court and at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.

        I do not accept any liability to you in relation to the advice given.

        It is always recommended you seek further advice from a solicitor or legal expert.

        Always read your lease first, it is the legally binding contract between leaseholder and freeholder.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Benzo View Post

          Nothing that I can see. Apart from the covenant to pay for any S146/S147 actions mentioned above, the only other one is a reserve fund plus this:
          1. the fees of the Lessor’s Managing Agents for the collection of the rents of the Flats in the Building and for the general management thereof.
          Would that count?
          No that only allows the freeholder to recover the charges of the managing agent. So it looks like the freeholder is restricted to recovering costs from the individual leaseholders, as andydd says.

          Comment


            #6
            Thanks guys. I'll push back and suggest they remove the fees or I'll pay in protest and apply to Tribunal.

            Comment


              #7
              Note that there are number of people lobbying, on the forum, for the s146 option to be removed, so you should give serious consideration as to how service charge arrears can be chased.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
                Note that there are number of people lobbying, on the forum, for the s146 option to be removed, so you should give serious consideration as to how service charge arrears can be chased.
                My understanding is that in a tripartite lease the Management Company should not be using the s146 route as only the freeholder can forfeit the lease.

                Therefore can't see that how the removal of the s146 option will change how service charge arrears are currently chased, especially if three parties involved.

                Comment


                  #9
                  It's generally in the interests of the freeholder that the property be managed, so I would have thought they would have wanted to use that route on behalf of the management company. The management company generally has no money of its own, so the freeholder would have to make good any arrears, if work is to be done.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    If you go to the FTT, you should argue that only the freeholder would benefit from forfeiture therefore the legal costs should be paid by the freeholder.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      If the freeholder commenced legal action against the leaseholders whilst the RTM proceedings were being considered, you could also argue that the freeholder's actions were vexatious.

                      The freeholder could argue that monies were required to carry out the day to day running of the building, so you should be prepared to supply evidence that there were sufficient funds in the bank account eg a bank statement if you have one or the last set of service charge accounts showing the bank balance.

                      You may need to explain why the leaseholders were not paying the freeholder eg breakdown of trust or specific examples of unreasonable charges.

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      • Group Freeholder wants to replace new windows unnecessarily - what to do?
                        by Boab
                        Hi all

                        This is a request for help for my partner who is the long term leaseholder on a ground floor flat/maisonette in a detached house owned by a large group.

                        The freeholder is demanding all the double glazing be replaced at a cost IRO £8000. My partner simply cannot afford...
                        21-01-2021, 14:33 PM
                      • Reply to Group Freeholder wants to replace new windows unnecessarily - what to do?
                        by scot22
                        So sorry to hear of your partner 's issues.
                        I agree with posts already given. A key word in legal matters is reasonable. To charge an excessive amount of money to replace sound windows is patently unreasonable. In my opinion it is rock solid your partner should not have any financial charges....
                        22-01-2021, 22:38 PM
                      • S146 Notice and subsequent Events
                        by Steve001
                        We have served a S146 Notice to a Leaseholder who has abandoned the Flat. The Flat was given to the Leaseholder originally by a relative and he has run up significant debts which mean there is no equity in the Flat sale proceeds. In addition, there is drug activity evidence and the Flat has been subsequently...
                        21-01-2021, 10:39 AM
                      • Reply to S146 Notice and subsequent Events
                        by Anna1985
                        eagle2 - why? The leaseholder doesn't engage, there is a somebody who claims to be an interested party, without any proof of authority to action.

                        There is no legal standing so far, unless the so called representative will provide the paperwork required.

                        If it happens after...
                        22-01-2021, 18:17 PM
                      • Reply to S146 Notice and subsequent Events
                        by eagle2
                        This is different, we have a freeholder who has had dealings with the leaseholder and is likely to know if a letter is genuine....
                        22-01-2021, 16:02 PM
                      • Reply to S146 Notice and subsequent Events
                        by Jon66
                        It isn't enough to simply provide a letter of authority these days I'm afraid. Anyone acting on just a letter of authority when dealing with property matters and a possible conveyance would be negligent. Particularly when doubts have already been raised about the persons identity which is why a passport...
                        22-01-2021, 15:39 PM
                      • Pet consent
                        by Nat1178
                        Hi, I don’t know why but my previous post was unapproved. SO let me repost this topic.

                        I just exchanged the contact for a leasehold property. The freeholder’s agent is {Name removed}.



                        My lease requires freeholder’s consent for keeping a pet. I have a cat and need consent...
                        12-12-2020, 10:05 AM
                      • Reply to Pet consent
                        by jpkeates
                        The constraints on terms in consumer contracts with landlords are not the same as those between freeholders and leaseholders.

                        There's nothing specific in the consumer rights act that says that a landlord has to allow pets, but that was part of some older Office of Fair Trading (now called...
                        22-01-2021, 15:05 PM
                      • Reply to Pet consent
                        by Jon66
                        I requested permission for a house cat to the freeholders managing agent on behalf of a prospective tenant. Permission was given after 5 days provided it was a house cat and did not defecate outside. Perfectly reasonable, and she was a lovely tenant with a cute cat. No additional damage to the property...
                        22-01-2021, 14:51 PM
                      • Reply to Pet consent
                        by eagle2
                        Someone has drawn my attention to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and stated that a landlord cannot unreasonably refuse permission for a pet to be kept. Has anyone else come across this?...
                        22-01-2021, 14:17 PM
                      Working...
                      X