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

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

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

    Hi, Gorgeous day and another day indoors! the landlord is in breach of covenant so do I go the county court route apply for an injunction - never done this -clueless or go Appoint Manager route with FTT and add this to my challenge against service charges and serve prescribed notice to the landlord?

    #2
    An injunction against landlord doing what ?? Harassment, sending letters, not doing his job????
    I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

    Comment


      #3
      You can download free guides on applications to FTT from www.lease-advice.org

      Comment


        #4
        Landlord in breach of covenant - obligation to insure building, not insured building as per lease provisions and asking me to pay directly to a third party - a broker which is not in my best interests or the company. Appointed unlawful property manager.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
          An injunction against landlord doing what ?? Harassment, sending letters, not doing his job????
          Breach of covenant insurance

          Comment


            #6
            There are a few questions that I would consider to be important, and it might be necessary for us to know the exact wording of any relevant clauses from your lease.

            1. Is your building insured - even if the insurance isn't in full accordance with the terms of the lease? I.e. If something serious happened that affected your flat would the cost be recoverable from insurance?
            2. How is the landlord breaching the insurance clause (if insurance is in place)?
            3. Why do you say the appointed property manager is illegal?
            4. How well is the property being managed in other respects (presumably there are other issues if you are challenging service charges and considering appointment of a manager)?

            Trying to obtain an injunction would, I believe, require you to go to the county court (it is outside FTT jurisdiction) and could be expensive because proper legal advice would probably be advisable.

            Comment


              #7
              The lease in the Fifth schedule services provided by the Lessor..to insure the building and Common Parts...they have left out the common parts the policy says so....so we are not insured for accessways, walls, stairs external doors paved areas, glass chimney, car park etc...carpets blah blah....also I was the only one who paid my insurance contribution through the service charge however the others paid the broker directly which is unusual don't you think? The property manager is not FCA, RICS not anything approved to sell insurance products...dodgy!!! The landlord is in breach of most covenants to the tenants..

              Comment


                #8
                The "buildings insurance cover" should be to insure for cost of re-instatement of the building after total destruction by fire or some other mishap. The cost of re-instatementof the building is calculated by a chartered surveyor by the floor area of the building x the number of floors x rebuilding rate + cost of removal of old building debris + the architects cost. The insured value is increased by 20% above the calculated value to cover any delay in rebuilding.

                The insurance policy for a block of flats can include include cover for building -re-instatement , public liability, employee liability, plus water ingress damage to communal areas, subsidence etc.

                The Manager of the service charge account is responsible for placing the insurance policy and re-charging the cost of buildings insurance as disbursement in the service charge account. Some leases may state the insurance contribution is collected by the freeholder or by the agent.

                Comment


                  #9
                  It sounds like the building may be adequately insured, but the insurance doesn't fully comply with the terms stated in the lease. This might give you grounds for arguing that the entire insurance premium is not payable - even if the reality is that the increased premium, excesses, and likelihood of a claim, means that someone owning a similar property as a sole freehold owner would consider it an unreasonable expense.
                  While you might 'win' in a tribunal, you would have to consider whether the potentially increased premiums you would have to pay afterwards made it worthwhile arguing this point.

                  Being asked to pay insurance premiums directly to a broker isn't right, but since you aren't personally doing this you can't argue that point. There is no reason why leaseholders/freeholders can't deviate from requirements of the lease by agreement - it just risks complications if there is a dispute.

                  Regarding other alleged breaches of covenant by the landlord, you will have to decide what the best course of action is. Trying to get a manager appointed would be one potential way forward, but taking this route may will only be a temporary solution, and might work out expensive in the long run.
                  It's likely to be better to find a way to make the freeholder understand their responsibilities, or to find a way to take over control of the management of the block.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Thanks for your replies all welcome and Macromia we have always insured the common parts it is a requirement of a clause in the lease and this year they changed it so I cant see them saying they cant afford it or don't agree after six years they have to as you say comply with the lease including paying all the costs through the service charge that is what the lease says all tenants are to do it does not say pay a third party otherwise no point in having a Lease otherwise.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Macromia ... the lease is a contract..you cant just do what you like...pick and chose otherwise no point in having a lease!!!!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The Freeholder is legal owner of the building so I have doubts whether an injunction can succeed . You could try asking the Court Manager at your local Magistrates Court. The problem at County Court, the Court Manager and staff will not give any advice and send you away..

                        Best option is application to the FTT for judgement on the reasonableness of the service charge account. Second option is setting up RTM if you have 51+ % support from other leaseholders. Third Option is to sell and move on .

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Stacker View Post
                          Macromia ... the lease is a contract..you cant just do what you like...pick and chose otherwise no point in having a lease!!!!
                          Actually, the parties to a contract can "pick and choose" - it's just that it's usually unwise to do so.

                          In this case (regarding the insurance) the lease apparently describes precisely what the insurance the freeholder is meant to arrange should cover. If the freeholder doesn't cover exactly what the lease states, and only that, he is putting himself at risk of potentially being unable to recover any of the insurance cost from leaseholders, even though the lease allows insurance costs to be collected as a part of the service charge.
                          I had five years of insurance payments ruled as not payable for precisely that reason.
                          On the other hand, if the freeholder can be certain that ALL leaseholders would prefer insurance that somehow differs from the strict terms of the lease, they can choose not to follow the lease - but they need to realise that, by doing so, they are at risk of being challenged (and likely would be if any circumstances where leaseholders lose money as a result of the breach were to occur - even if the breach favoured the leaseholders most of the time).

                          I suspect that there are a lot of leasehold properties where either freeholder or leaseholder is aware that the other party is somehow breaching the terms of the lease (both may even be aware) but ignores the breach because it doesn't cause any harm, or financial lose and may even be beneficial to them.

                          As for paying contributions for insurance direct to the broker, that wouldn't mean that the insurance costs are not still part of the service charge, and wouldn't mean that the freeholder hadn't fulfilled their duty to arrange insurance under the terms of the lease (if the insurance met all requirements).
                          While it isn't normal for leaseholders to pay their part of the insurance directly to the broker, I don't see any reason why they can't do this if they agree to do so (although it would probably make it more difficult for those leaseholders to later challenge the cost of insurance as paying direct is likely to be considered acceptance of the cost).



                          Originally posted by Gordon999 View Post
                          The Freeholder is legal owner of the building so I have doubts whether an injunction can succeed .
                          ​​​​​​​The idea of an injunction, in this case, would be to require the freeholder to perform some, or all, of the obligations that he has under the terms of the lease - not to restrict his rights as the legal owner of the building.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Macromia if the monies are not paid through the service charge to the Lesssor then its not a service charge, paying someone else a third party where there is no contractual tenant landlord relationship means its not a service charge and there is no statutory cover under the L&T ACTs so could not take it to FTT...

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Stacker View Post
                              Macromia if the monies are not paid through the service charge to the Lesssor then its not a service charge, paying someone else a third party where there is no contractual tenant landlord relationship means its not a service charge and there is no statutory cover under the L&T ACTs so could not take it to FTT...
                              The legal definition of a service charge is given in section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It says nothing about payments having to be paid to the 'landlord', only that the costs are incurred by, or on behalf of the landlord. If the lease requires the landlord to arrange insurance, and that leaseholders contribute towards that insurance, there is nothing to stop the landlord arranging that insurance and arranging for leaseholders to pay their share direct to the broker.

                              Personally, like you, I would not be willing to do this and would insist on paying my share via the landlord or their managing agent, but not because doing differently would mean that it wasn't a service charge.
                              The insurance should still be included on an annual service charge summary, if you receive one, even if leaseholders pay their share directly.

                              Paying directly doesn't mean that you can't take the cost of insurance to a tribunal because it is not a service charge, but it does mean that a tribunal is likely to take the view that you had agreed to the cost.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • Reply to Legal Action Against Landlord - Local Council
                                by Gordon999
                                Marriage value is payable in the compensation if the existing lease has fallen below 80 years remaining. It may benefit older leases if leaseholders are not required to pay the legal and surveyor costs for both sides.
                                05-12-2021, 12:32 PM
                              • Reply to Lease variation
                                by indiejanb
                                eagle2,

                                The management company is, though, specifically varying a restrictive clause in the lease. On that basis, I believe it needs a formal deed of variation to be lodged. Is that not correct?
                                05-12-2021, 12:29 PM
                              • Legal Action Against Landlord - Local Council
                                by Isaac1400
                                Hi,

                                Hoping someone can advise. I am leaseholder and the landlord is a local council. my property is a flat and there are about 55 flats spread out over 3 floors.

                                Now the problem is that over the years the council has failed to maintain the exterior and communal areas - including...
                                02-12-2021, 07:13 AM
                              • Reply to Legal Action Against Landlord - Local Council
                                by Section20z
                                It may benefit older leases by removing "marriage value" from lease extensions but this would not help you _ and freeholders are also aware of imminent changes and may be more willing to negotiate prior.
                                Speak with a specialist like Homehold.org who will negotiate on your behalf,...
                                05-12-2021, 07:14 AM
                              • Reply to How much can the freeholder charge for registering details of a sublet?
                                by eagle2
                                If the lease states that you may charge a registration fee of £10, that is the amount you may charge, you are not entitled to increase the charge unless the lease specifically allows an increase. Even then you would be limited to a reasonable amount and £100 would be considered to be unreasonable....
                                05-12-2021, 06:55 AM
                              • How much can the freeholder charge for registering details of a sublet?
                                by Joubert
                                I am a director of a Freehold Company of a small block of 28 flats in a popular residential area.

                                Over the past few years the majority of flats have been purchased by investors who sublet the flats on ASTs.

                                Although the leases between the Freehold Company and the lessees are...
                                04-12-2021, 17:35 PM
                              • Reply to Legal Action Against Landlord - Local Council
                                by andydd
                                I sued my freeholder for failure to maintain my driveway, judge was quite damning but I was only awarded £100 as hard to proof any loss BUT in your case it sounds you have exceptional worry over various incidents so yes you could sue and as I found out it was useful, I got costs too and its something...
                                04-12-2021, 21:19 PM
                              • Reply to Dilapidated Flat
                                by scot22
                                Thanks all. It was a great price, significantly below market value, plus in further negotiations a reduction to pay for any further work. This was identified by a surveyor. She is not clueless.....
                                Artful in my research I read that can only claim for her ownership period.
                                It is all i...
                                04-12-2021, 19:33 PM
                              • Dilapidated Flat
                                by scot22
                                In a block of 24, unfortunately one flat has become dilapidated. The new owner has bought cheaply. She is now demanding the Freeholder pays to refurbish it claiming they have been negligent. Is there a reasonable case ?
                                04-12-2021, 11:21 AM
                              • Reply to Legal Action Against Landlord - Local Council
                                by Isaac1400
                                Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have heard of this. In summary do you know if this would benefit those with older leases and not on the builds which have has issues with rising ground rent etc?...
                                04-12-2021, 19:09 PM
                              Working...
                              X