Being removed as a director from freeholder company

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

    #16
    Originally posted by surreygirl View Post
    ...it does appear that we are. Because the Agenda for the meeting says "appointment of Directors" but we already are Directors.
    Ah hah! Sure, isn't it a standard item on an annual company meeting agenda for "Appointment of Directors". We have it on our AGM agenda every year. Not that we usually get any volunteers, mind. It doesn't mean existing directors are being sacked. That is why you need to see the articles. You MUST see them as a company director.

    Are you sure you aren't misresembling what the agenda means? Google AGM agendas.

    No managing agent can run their client's company. Only the directors of a company get to run the company. The agent can go and run their own company, innit.

    It surely has to say somewhere at CH what the articles are even if model version has been adopted. When was the company incorporated?
    Do not read my offerings, based purely on my research or experience as a lessee, as legal advice. If you need legal advice please see a solicitor.

    Comment


      #17
      That is interesting MrSoffit. No I have looked everywhere I can for a copy of the AofA in Companies house. I think they have just adopted a standard model version. It was incorporated in 1995.

      I didnt realise that it was normal I do have to say. We have never had that but there again we are only using an Agent these past six months. Before we run it ourselves.

      Also what is more important. Is it the lease or the AofA. I am reading about directors now in the AofA. I am trying to get my head around it.

      It says that if you are 70 then you have to retire and be re-elected. That is me as I have now reached the grand old age of 70. Not sure if I will be re-elected or whether they have any choice not to!!

      Comment


        #18
        "No managing agent can run their client's company. Only the directors of a company get to run the company. The agent can go and run their own company, innit"

        The only problem with that is that we as the Directors rarely agree. The lease is the problem as it is almost unworkable and so we have to put in things that are not there or read things which are poorly written and can mean a few different things ie "paint the outside of the flat every three years" Well that means that we are responsible ourselves for painting and organizing the outside painting. Some have small flats and some have large and so no one agrees to how much someone should pay if we have it painted together etc etc.

        I keep asking to change the lease but it falls on deaf ears.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by surreygirl View Post
          It says that if you are 70 then you have to retire and be re-elected. That is me as I have now reached the grand old age of 70. Not sure if I will be re-elected or whether they have any choice not to!!
          I do believe that the Companies Act removed the upper age limit too. Just the younger age limit.

          Problem is, articles can either add more rights than the CA 2006 or be overridden by the CA 2006. The only sane way to go is to google as many terms as you can think of and read all the legal websites that pop up.
          Do not read my offerings, based purely on my research or experience as a lessee, as legal advice. If you need legal advice please see a solicitor.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by surreygirl View Post
            The only problem with that is that we as the Directors rarely agree. The lease is the problem as it is almost unworkable and so we have to put in things that are not there... [...] I keep asking to change the lease but it falls on deaf ears.
            Never wise for a landlord to rewrite the lease. All goes well until somebody gets miffed or needs to put up a stout defence against debt recovery action. Suddenly they are a barrack room lawyer and a lease purist. Though not pure enough to pay their service charges. Tribunals cases I've read aren't big on irony.

            Rarely agreeing is fine if the articles allow majority voting. If directors refuse to follow the majority decision they are failing in their duties to the company. The comnay's needs is beigger than any individual's. Not that many leaseholders get this, mind. It's 'all for one and that one is me'.



            Do not read my offerings, based purely on my research or experience as a lessee, as legal advice. If you need legal advice please see a solicitor.

            Comment


              #21
              "Rarely agreeing is fine if the articles allow majority voting. If directors refuse to follow the majority decision they are failing in their duties to the company. The company's needs is bigger than any individual's. Not that many leaseholders get this, mind. It's 'all for one and that one is me'

              Well that is true and I think that it does allow for majority voting, but not very helpful if, like me you have the smallest flat and although the lease says that Leaseholders are responsible for painting the outside themselves and which the Leasehold tribunal have said that my payment is a one eighth of the decorations the others do not accept that and they all have two bed flats which go right across the house whereas my own is half of the house. So how do we get over that hiccup!! Not only that I am expected to pay for the damp proofing on top of that!!

              Any clue. I know I shall be outvoted on the 15th when we have our meeting to keep the service charge low. The lease doesnt allow for a reserve or sinking fund and it is defective in many other ways ie it doesnt include foundations and a whole host of other anomalies!!

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by surreygirl View Post
                ...although the lease says that Leaseholders are responsible for painting the outside themselves and which the Leasehold tribunal have said that my payment is a one eighth of the decorations the others do not accept that ... Not only that I am expected to pay for the damp proofing on top of that!!

                Any clue. I know I shall be outvoted on the 15th...
                What the others accept or not is irrelevant if the tribunal made a clear decision. Otherwise if the tribunal left bits undecided, the lease decides, even if it is unfair. You say a tribunal determined your contribution for 'decorations' is one eighth - so be it.

                Why did the tribunal simply decide on 'decorations'? What was the context? What is the apportionment for service charges generally? Sometimes it is based on floor area, sometimes it is a crude % based on total flats. Sometimes it is a real dog's dinner that makes barristers a nice living.

                Your only defence is the lease and whatever bit of it the tribunal decided if that was not challenged within the timeline for appeal.

                Do not read my offerings, based purely on my research or experience as a lessee, as legal advice. If you need legal advice please see a solicitor.

                Comment


                  #23
                  "What the others accept or not is irrelevant if the tribunal made a clear decision. Otherwise if the tribunal left bits undecided, the lease decides, even if it is unfair. You say a tribunal determined your contribution for 'decorations' is one eighth - so be it.

                  Why did the tribunal simply decide on 'decorations'? What was the context? What is the apportionment for service charges generally? Sometimes it is based on floor area, sometimes it is a crude % based on total flats. Sometimes it is a real dog's dinner that makes barristers a nice living".

                  Your only defence is the lease and whatever bit of it the tribunal decided if that was not challenged within the timeline for appeal.Because all the other things are listed as a one sixth share ie roof, garden, etc. However as we have to paint the outside of our flat ourselves. Easy for me as I do not need scaffolding. I agreed that we should have it all done together but that I should pay a lower price as mine is the smallest of the flats and only have two walls and I can quite literally paint it myself which I have done at times. But if they paint it then scaffolding is required and of course it is that much more expensive for those flat who need it. So they all decided that my share should be a one sixth but I thought that was unfair and so I applied to the tribunal for the decorations. I forgot to ask about repair as well so it just for the painting, however they have all been reluctant to have it painted because the larger flats do not want to pay the one fourth that has been set out by the Leasehold.

                  Well it is a dogs dinner I do have to day. It should be based on floor area and then we would all know where we are. The lot that is, but it isnt. I do not know who wrote up the lease but obviously they must have had a few at the time and were over the eight!!.

                  No they didnt challenge it except to ask if it included repair which they said no it didnt. But of course I forgot that bit and, as you know, they only respond to what you have asked about and really you cannot separate decoration from repair because before you paint you do have to brush it down with a wire brush and fill in holes etc.

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X