Does anyone have experience / know how to apply for an injunction against landlord?

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

    #16
    Sorry Macromia there is nothing in the LEASE that states pay a third party and its highly unusual...even the FTT say so, they say its a breach of the landlord own covenant...paying to a third party means section 27A you have accepted the cost..that is why sneaky landlords do it...Also paying anyone outside a tenant landlord relationship means you have no statutory protection under any of the L&T Acts 1985 or 1987. Sorry I dont buy it...

    Comment


      #17
      Macromia so how is an insurance broker or any third party going to serve a copy of the summary of tenant rights and obligations with their demand ..it makes no sense what you are saying..???

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Stacker View Post
        Sorry Macromia there is nothing in the LEASE that states pay a third party and its highly unusual...
        I wouldn't expect there to be anything in your lease saying that you should pay a third party (although it would be possible for leases to have requirements along these lines), and I have already said, more than once, that it wouldn't be a normal arrangement to pay parts of service charge costs to a third party (managing agents being the obvious exception).

        Originally posted by Stacker View Post
        ...even the FTT say so, they say its a breach of the landlord own covenant...
        It wouldn't be a breach of a landlords covenant unless a lease specifically says that the landlord must not ask leaseholders to pay any portion of their service charge costs to a third party.

        Originally posted by Stacker View Post
        ...paying to a third party means section 27A you have accepted the cost..that is why sneaky landlords do it...
        Yes, and again, I have already said, more than once, that this is how a tribunal is likely to treat any service charge costs that have been paid directly to a third party.

        Originally posted by Stacker View Post
        ... Also paying anyone outside a tenant landlord relationship means you have no statutory protection under any of the L&T Acts 1985 or 1987. Sorry I dont buy it...
        It will likely mean that you will be considered to have agreed to the costs (as stated previously). It is because you are considered to have accepted the charges by paying them to a third party than you lose protections, not because they are not considered to be service charges, as defined in L&T Act 1985.
        You would also be unable to challenge insurance costs if you paid your contribution to the freeholder by (for example) sending a cheque accompanied by a letter that stated that you thought the insurance that had been arranged was very reasonable and you were therefore happy to pay the sum demanded.

        Originally posted by Stacker View Post
        Macromia so how is an insurance broker or any third party going to serve a copy of the summary of tenant rights and obligations with their demand ..it makes no sense what you are saying..???
        Where do you get the idea that I would expect the insurance broker, or any third party other than a managing agent who had been appointed by the freeholder, to bill leaseholders directly?

        When you said that the leaseholders have been asked to pay their insurance costs from the service charge directly to the broker, I would take that to mean that the freeholder (or their managing agent) had sent out an invoice, and either stated on the invoice that the required amount was to be paid directly to the broker, or asked the leaseholders to do this (after previously agreeing this with the broker).
        If any service charge costs aren't demanded properly, including the summary of rights, they don't​​​​​​​ become payable - regardless of the payment arrangements that you are asked to follow.

        Comment


          #19
          The insurance broker NOT the freeholder sent out the equests directly to the leaseholders for payment..with no summary of rights.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Stacker View Post
            The insurance broker NOT the freeholder sent out the equests directly to the leaseholders for payment..with no summary of rights.
            In that case, if I was in your position, I would have ignored the demand completely (unless something in the lease made another course of action relevant).

            I wouldn't have paid either the broker or the freeholder because there was no valid service charge demand and therefore no payment was required.

            Comment


              #21
              Macromia I did exactly that then they took me to court for not paying

              Comment


                #22
                The main thing is that there is adequate cover and that is what surely should concern you. Is the policy with an"insurer of repute"? Is subsidence/heave included? What are the excesses; Is the insurer known to have excellent claims handling. Not naming names but they are not all the same, and a really good brokers will often be deputed to handle relatively small claims and know which insurers are particularly hard work on a loss.

                Are there full perils including terrorism and non-invalidation?.

                Are we covered for access and trace (which is the cost of exploratory work to find and cure a leak involving some deconstruction of the property)

                Does the policy include walls car-parks garden structures and service roads? Is the premium reasonable (and insurance rates are currently going up really quite sharply).
                Personally I really wouldn't worry about paying the premium to the designated Broker. The main thing is that cover is in place, and being held for an adequate amount.

                Pick your fights carefully and work with your freeholder in co-operation if you can.

                You can say to the freeholder when was a reinstatement valuation last carried out?

                Building costs have also rocketed, as a result of skills shortages and pressure of work has enabled contractors to push up their prices for reinstatement work.

                The costs of reinstatement really ought to be checked every few years. I have spent a lot of time in lock-down having sums insured checked with specialist surveyors who are working remotely from sets of plans photos etc and been surprised by the amounts specialist valuers have specified cover should be held for, rather more than the sum for which we had previously held cover and hence sums insured have to go up.

                You are entitled to a copy of the premium and schedule once a year without charge. Nowadays it would be sent out by email.

                Very roughly speaking, as a guide, for a top quality property owners policy, with all the bells and whistles, which are of course worth having, assuming standard construction and a claims history that is normal, a million pounds of cover is going to be somewhere in the region of fifteen hundred quid a year including premium tax. Someone will say they have found cheaper cover; but cheaper is not necessarily better. The precise location of the risk affects the rating Currently, perceived flood risk is an important criteria for the cost of cover. The figure I have mentioned is for the South East.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Thank you flying freehold..that is the issue inconsistent policies and communals not insured and excess high, reinstatement not done for 6 years..they do what they like...

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X