Section 20 - Splitting Redecoration Works into Stages

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

    Section 20 - Splitting Redecoration Works into Stages

    I'm one of three directors of an RMC, looking after the management of a block of 11 flats (conversion of big Victorian house).

    The common areas (hall/stairs/doorway, etc.) need some redecoration. Likely cost around £4,500.

    The Section 20 threshold for this building will be about £2,200 so we're going to blow that, which means consultations...consultations, etc.

    We were wondering about dividing the project up into different phases, each of which would need to stay below the £2,200 threshold. Eg:
    * phase 1: paint walls
    * phase 2: paint skirting boards
    * phase 3: paint door frames

    (or something along those lines)

    Could we do this, or could it be challenged by leaseholders as being a tricksy, artificial way of getting around the S20 process?

    Thank you.

    #2
    They certainly should challenge it, as it it not sensible to let those as separate contracts.

    I can see no valid reason why you should need to save the cost of 11 times a few pieces of paper.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
      They certainly should challenge it, as it it not sensible to let those as separate contracts.

      I can see no valid reason why you should need to save the cost of 11 times a few pieces of paper.
      Thanks. The only motivation is to save time, that's all. But if it's not possible, it's not possible.

      Comment


        #4
        Best to get 3 valid quotations and show a summary of all 3 prices to the 11 leaseholders, and call a meeting to vote which quotation to accept.

        Comment


          #5
          Dear bigalxyz

          You will not be able to circumvent s.20 by splitting the work you described into phases. Google the sets approach and Francis v Phillips. However, you should also look up 'Daejan v Benson: s.20 dispensation granted to freeholders' though Daejan does not/should not mean freeholders intentionally ignore s.20.

          s.20 need not be that onerous but it does add to a freeholder's work, time and costs. You are probably able to charge notice fees to service charges.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by vmart View Post
            Dear bigalxyz

            You will not be able to circumvent s.20 by splitting the work you described into phases. Google the sets approach and Francis v Phillips. However, you should also look up 'Daejan v Benson: s.20 dispensation granted to freeholders' though Daejan does not/should not mean freeholders intentionally ignore s.20.

            s.20 need not be that onerous but it does add to a freeholder's work, time and costs. You are probably able to charge notice fees to service charges.
            Thank you. Much appreciated. I will look into the cases you've mentioned shortly.

            Comment

            Latest Activity

            Collapse

            Working...
            X