Liability for costs?

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

  • Appleblossom
    replied
    Thank you very much.

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    Originally posted by Appleblossom View Post
    Dear All, I am sorry to gatecrash this thread. I am trying to post regarding pets. Can someone help pls, I can't find where to start a new thread?
    She has now found how to make a new thread, so question is resolved ( residential letting )

    Leave a comment:


  • Appleblossom
    replied
    Dear All, I am sorry to gatecrash this thread. I am trying to post regarding pets. Can someone help pls, I can't find where to start a new thread?

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    If there really is nothing at all in your lease that would require you to pay towards roof repairs, then you don't have to pay.
    Presuming that your flat is one of "5,6,7 or 8", it does sound like your lease is defective, and that you should be required to pay "a fair proportion" (the same as the other leases).
    If the freeholder, or any of the other leaseholders, pursued a lease alteration at the FTT they might be successful, but technically the other leases would still allow 100% of costs to be recovered so it might be possible to argue that none of the criteria which allow an application to be made are available.

    It could also potentially be argued that "a fair proportion" of costs for each of the other three flats doesn't mean splitting the entire amount between them - but that's for them to argue if the freeholder tries to charge them a third each (or any other split that adds up to 100%).

    If I was you, I'd have someone with appropriate legal experience check your lease to confirm that you aren't obligated to pay anything - and if your lease doesn't require you to pay, don't pay.
    It's then up to the freeholder...

    Leave a comment:


  • scot22
    replied
    My comments on #2 were made too soon. Still believe you're O.K !
    Other posts have been valuable. I understand now where you are coming from and wish you well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harwood
    replied


    To paraphrase the upstairs flats lease covenant;

    as and when necessary pay a fair proportion the cost of keeping in good repair__________________________

    The structure of the building so far as it comprises flat 5,6,7, 8, and in particular but without prejudice to the generality thereof the roof and roof timbers, foundations and external walls.......

    I should point out at this stage that the occupier of the upstairs flat is not a nice man! He bullied and intimidated his next door neighbour, an 86 year old lady to the extent she has had to summon the police twice, the mgt Company has had to threaten him with legal action to force him to cease motor trading, halt an unauthorised loft conversion, and obtain planning permission for other works which include self installing a live fireplace which leaks smoke into other flats via the roof space.
    Needless to say i will not be volunteering any funds to the cause of the roof replacement unless i absolutely have too.
    I beleive the other ground floor flats lease has a similar covenant to the above

    Thanks
    Andy

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by Macromia View Post
    That's not necessarily true.
    Agree with that. The lease is what the lease is. The original purchaser bought it and paid a price based on what it is, whether that was in error or otherwise.

    It would be pretty outrageous if it were "corrected" in retrospect without compensation and without agreement. The only logical source of that compensation, since the freeholder would have to cover any shortfall the lease does not enable to be recovered in terms of their obligations, is the freeholder itself (which might be all the flats if they own the freehold).

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    Do the other leases specify a proportion of the cost of repairing the roof? If the split is discretionary, I don't see how the lease would be ruled defective, or how you could be forced to pay for the roof.

    Have you looked at other ground floor lease? If it includes paying for the roof, there seems to a strong moral argument that you should be paying, but I can't see it as being enforceable. Similarly if there are explicit percentages and they don't add up to 100%.

    Note that we can only respond to the extracts from the lease that you have provided, and it is possible that the full lease clarifies the position.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harwood
    replied
    Thanks all - some good points there,
    So, if my lease were to be deemed to be defective and amended to include liability for roof etc. would it be fair to ask for compensation from the freeholder?
    One of the attractions to initial purchase was low liabilities on maintenance and the ability to keep a dog in the flat.

    Andy

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    That's a fair point!

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    Originally posted by Macromia View Post
    Without knowing what all leases say we can't assume that the leases are defective.
    This is true, but as Harwood says,
    "in doing so they inadvertently cut out the repairing covenant - and a few others
    pets, washing lines etc".

    The etc means many more Standard covenants have been omitted.

    You can bet a typographical error HAS occurred in Harwoods lease, and just his lease.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by ram View Post
    Your lease is certainly defective, and an application to the F.T.T. by any one of the others, will most likely be agreed your lease must be changed.
    That's not necessarily true.
    Although it might be considered an unusual arrangement, it is possible for there to be a situation where some, or all, of the other leaseholders are responsible for the maintenance of the roof.
    There could, for instance, be a situation where the top floor flat has asked to extend their property into any loft space that existed, and as a condition of granting permission for this all leases were changed and the upper flat assumed full responsibility for the cost of maintenance of the roof.

    Without knowing what all leases say we can't assume that the leases are defective.

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    This happened to some of our leases.
    These were all typed on a type writer, every one, so therefore no just changing the names, flat numbers and dates on your word processor.
    Same leases, but when copy typed, some had minor omissions.
    If you have ever copy typed a document that is numbered, it is easy to miss one paragraph, especially if they go

    E.G,
    3 ( 1 ) ( 6 )
    3 ( 1 ) ( 7 ) etc.

    Ours need rectifying, but as it's a freeholder mistake, the Directors wont have the leases changed, as its the directors that have to pay for it.
    If the others find out that your lease entitles you not to contribute to the roof, I think they will insist the lease is changed, and that roof repairs are not done until your lease is changed.

    Normally leases are changed if the lease is defective.
    Your lease is certainly defective, and an application to the F.T.T. by any one of the others, will most likely be agreed your lease must be changed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Who is responsible for contributing to the cost of roof repairs (and any other repairs/maintenance/service costs) will depend on precisely what it says in your lease, and the leases of the other properties in the block.
    There are four main options:
    1. You are required to contribute towards roof repair.
    2. The other leaseholders all share the costs of roof repair.
    3. The roof repair costs are the responsibility of the upper floor flats only.
    4. The lease makes no provision for recovering roof repair costs and the costs are therefore the responsibility of the freeholder (if he is obliged to repair the roof). If this is the case, the freeholder may be able to apply to the FTT to get the lease altered to one of the above three.

    If your lease doesn't specifically exclude you from being responsible for roof repair costs, they might be payable as a result of a more general clause.

    Leave a comment:


  • scot22
    replied
    Does your lease specifically state you are not to contribute to roof repairs ?
    I assume the roof is also protecting your dwelling.
    I assume you are fair and decent man and want to share the burden equally.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Confused - E & M Management
    by Flashback1966
    Totally confused. Solicitor did a lease extension on an 80s purpose built flat in private development. The freeholder is the local council.

    However, for reason, the statutory notices had been served on the local council and E&M management. They were pain to deal with.
    ...
    02-07-2020, 00:42 AM
  • Corner Shops with Flats above
    by Flashback1966
    About 20 years, I bought a flat above a shop. I have drawn a diagram. Mine is first floor flat NO. 72.

    The Freeholder owns both shops at No. 72 and No 70. He rents out the shops. At some point, he split each of the shops, so the rear of the shop has now two residential ground floor flats.
    ...
    06-06-2020, 02:39 AM
  • Reply to Corner Shops with Flats above
    by Flashback1966
    >> The planning departments love a bit of enforcement action and if you say there these are built without consent will send two smartly dressed officers with clipboards and cameras.

    It was done a long time ago.

    I am assuming they lied to the council and back-dated council...
    02-07-2020, 00:34 AM
  • Reply to Background checks - marriage certificate, name change etc...
    by Flashback1966
    >> Request evidence of her authority to deal with any matters concerning the property.

    We got a letter, from the freeholder, to say she is managing his affairs, but I am not convinced about the letter, as it appears to be written in the same style, fonts, ink jet printer etc... It...
    02-07-2020, 00:24 AM
  • Background checks - marriage certificate, name change etc...
    by Flashback1966
    There has been a freeholder who has been absent for some 15 or 20 years. He may well be in Spain. A woman was living in his flat. We assumed she was his partner (or has a historical connection / relationship). I don't think he has ever lived in the flat. We have some leasehold dispute, but she is the...
    03-02-2020, 20:52 PM
  • Freeholder demanding a premium
    by Disraeli-LLH
    We have a 1 bed ground floor flat with c.970 years left. Our lease stipulates that we have to get written consent to make any alterations or additions to the premises.
    We are looking to do some works to our 1 bed flat. This includes relocating the kitchen which will create a second bedroom. The...
    01-07-2020, 16:19 PM
  • Reply to Freeholder demanding a premium
    by sgclacy
    The landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent, but in this case he may well have grounds to do so.

    It is not ideal to have the only living space in a flat having a kitchen in it as well, I know that planners are not keen on it. Also, the juxtaposition of the rooms as referred to be...
    01-07-2020, 23:59 PM
  • Reply to Permission to let problems
    by sid1956
    They also want me to sign a 4 page Sublet Agreement adding new covenants. Do I have to sign this? - it doesn't say anything about a sublet agreement in the Lease - just that permission will not be unreasonably withheld.
    01-07-2020, 20:33 PM
  • Permission to let problems
    by sid1956
    Hi
    Wondered if someone could help with some advice please.

    My long leasehold flat has been rented for a few years. By oversight prior permission was not sought from freeholder in advance. The lease says that prior permission must be sought and a fee of £45 paid for each sublet....
    28-06-2020, 21:43 PM
  • Reply to Landlord breach of covenant
    by Stacker
    Thank you Gordon however the way the managing agent and directors have structured the deal...asking the leaseholders to pay a third party directly does not come under FTT I have studied cases online...in addition the directors and managing agent entered into contracts when the company had no money....
    01-07-2020, 20:04 PM
Working...
X