Belated Extra Service Charge

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

  • Flashback1966
    replied
    During the buying selling process. The buyer's solicitor would have asked about details of service charge. If they said it is up-to-date, then some fault lies with the Freeholder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by flyingfreehold View Post
    I dont think Macro is correct; once the lease is assigned, the assignee becomes liable for the debts to the landlord of the assignor
    The Landlord and Tenant (Covenant) Act 1995, Section 23, part (1), specifically states that the assignee doesn't have any liability for any time prior to assignment.
    However, part (3) of that section allows 'rights of re-entry' to be enforced for breaches that occurred before any assignment.

    This means that it is the person who owned the lease at the time of a breach (including the accumulation of arrears) who would need to be pursued for judgement that a breach has occurred - but if judgement is received, forfeiture proceedings can then be pursued against the new owner.


    In the situation described in this thread though there were no arrears at the time the lease was transferred, and it is the new owner of the lease who has legal responsibility for paying the late service charge demand (or fighting it), because they owned the lease when payment became due.
    Since the OP accepts that the additional charge refers to a period when they owned the lease, they can choose to accept moral responsibility for paying - which they apparently did despite not having any legal responsibility for the debt.

    Leave a comment:


  • flyingfreehold
    replied
    I dont think Macro is correct; once the lease is assigned, the assignee becomes liable for the debts to the landlord of the assignor

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by Gordon999 View Post
    Then the management company would be chasing new leaseholder for service charge arrears- not chase you..
    Only because it is easier for them to chase the new leaseholder, because of the potential to threaten forfeiture.

    It should really be the person who owned the lease when the money became due who is chased.

    Leave a comment:


  • clarrieblue
    replied
    That’s correct, the new leaseholder is being chased for the extra service charge. The charge was for the period that ended 18 months before my sale of the apartment to them was concluded. Such a long delay in completing the accounts seems incompetent to me.

    I did not want a debt of mine, though I thought it unjustified, to cause a problem for the new leaseholder, eg be detrimental to their credit rating. So today I settled the debt.

    Leave a comment:


  • TruthLedger
    replied
    clarrieblue,

    How was this brought to your attention? I take it the current leaseholder (or their solicitor) contacted you about the £200 extra service charge? Was this invoice produced within 18 months? There is the 18 month rule Under Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

    Leave a comment:


  • Gordon999
    replied
    If you have already sold your flat , your buyer or buyer's solicitor should have registered the transfer of flat under name of new leaseholder . Then the management company would be chasing new leaseholder for service charge arrears- not chase you..

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by flyingfreehold View Post
    Part of the problem with any kind of block of flats is that to operate any kind of service charge mechanism there are overheads, often a need for an audited set of accounts, ... [etc.] ...
    It a properly managed block costs of the sort that you mention should not lead to the need to claim an additional payment at the end of a service charge year, and definitely not a payment that the leaseholders aren't told is required until well after the accounting year has ended.
    These are all costs that the freeholder/managing agent should be aware will need to paid at the beginning of the accounting year, and should therefore have been budgeted for appropriately.

    I agree that many of these costs do nothing at all to benefit the leaseholders (in most cases), and regulations need to be changed to remove any costs that are of no benefit. The need for service charge accounts to be certified by an independent accountant is an example of one cost that shouldn't be required, and should be actively discouraged for small blocks. This certification supposedly helps protect leaseholders, but in reality all that it does is mean that they need to pay more (potentially 10%, or more, above what they would otherwise pay in small blocks that require little maintenance) while failing to guarantee that any of the charges made are actually payable. All that the accountants usually do is check that the totals on the invoices they are provided with add up to the total service charges that are being claimed (and when there are only 20-40 invoices, as is the case for my block, even a halfway competent leaseholder should be able to do this in 10 minutes once provided with copies of the invoices).

    There will, however, sometimes be occasions when work that was planned turns out to be more expensive than originally thought, and may even end up costing more than the contingency that should have been included in the budget, and this may result in overspends.
    There will also sometimes be cases where the need for immediate maintenance comes up unexpectedly, or work that was know would be needed, but was going to be included in the next service charge year has to be brought forward.

    Leave a comment:


  • flyingfreehold
    replied
    Part of the problem with any kind of block of flats is that to operate any kind of service charge mechanism there are overheads, often a need for an audited set of accounts, fire risk assessments, asbestos and possibly legionnaires checking, smoke alarm testing etc; some clerical costs to cover the cost of collecting insurance premia so prior to a penny actually being spent on gardening and common parts repairs/renewals the service charge collection can easily run to a few hundred pounds per flat. As many readers will know the consultation process on anything over £250 per flat takes so blinking long that many builders don't really want to bother to quote for a job that may take months to greenlight and those who do price to take account of the disadvantages as compared to other forms of contracting.

    Leave a comment:


  • clarrieblue
    replied
    Thanks all, I appreciate your responses. I've decided to put pragmatism before principle and pay the extra charge.

    By the way, I made a formal complaint but, other than a very belated acknowledgement of receipt, never received a substantive response.

    Confirms my impression that Managing Agents are very poorly regulated. Consequently a great many leasehold apartment owners receive poor service and value for the inflated charges they pay. No surprise there I guess.

    Glad I'm not involved with them from here on.

    Leave a comment:


  • scot22
    replied
    #5 Surely it depends on the status of the principle. I am not sure that any significant principle is involved. Effect on society ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Most leases allow 'balancing payments' to be demanded in the event that there was an overspend compared to the estimated charges.
    Unless you are certain that your lease doesn't allow this, I would forget about trying to challenge this.

    In fact, since it would likely cost you almost as much, potentially more, to challenge the demand, I would forget about it anyway. What you could do is make it clear to the freeholder (in writing) that you dispute the charge and have reserved your right to challenge it at a later date. That way you can include it in any later tribunal/court action that might be started within the next few years, either by yourself or by the freeholder.

    Leave a comment:


  • MdeB
    replied
    Originally posted by scot22 View Post
    Think of your time and effort, just leave it.
    Considering time and effort does not seem compatible with a matter of principle.

    Leave a comment:


  • DPT57
    replied
    This is not uncommon.

    Leave a comment:


  • ash72
    replied
    I would pay the money and avoid any further charges and costs as well as a CCJ. I'm surprised you managed to exchange and complete on your property with a debt still hanging over the property, and the other party didn't flag it.

    This post should be redirected to the appropriate forum.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Reply to Lease extension - should I pursue non statutory?
    by sgclacy
    A statutory lease extension offers just one option – 90 years added and a peppercorn rent and the law commission now feel that there should be greater flexibility and that lessee should be given the right to extend the term keeping the rent terms the same or extinguishing just the rent but keeping...
    26-09-2020, 22:14 PM
  • Lease extension - should I pursue non statutory?
    by theta
    I received a section 42 notice for a statutory lease extension for a flat where I own the freehold. There are 87 years remaining on the lease, and ground rent review is every 10 years linked to RPI (next review 2027).
    My appointed managing agent recommended a solicitor with experience on this,...
    25-09-2020, 07:56 AM
  • Reply to Lease extension - should I pursue non statutory?
    by sgclacy
    Flying freehold is quite correct, but his words have incorrectly interpreted by the OP.

    Both individuals and companies can roll over gains resulting from statutory lease extensions. Individuals pay CGT and companies pay corporation tax on their gains. If the individual or company holds...
    26-09-2020, 21:26 PM
  • Freeholder's consent
    by stressed12
    I am freeholder and tenant in a converted Victorian house. The lessee of the top flat wants to sell and asked for written consent for:
    1) right to pass from a driveway that leads to a parking spot. His lease mentions the right to park in that spot (along with another lessee, so 2 flats have the...
    28-04-2020, 18:46 PM
  • Reply to Freeholder's consent
    by Section20z
    Why did you tell them ?
    If they want a ridiculous amount then just back out, no great loss and unlikely they will take action for the breach.
    If they do then deal with it then ....
    26-09-2020, 20:53 PM
  • Reply to Freeholder's consent
    by Vednaik
    Hi, I want to buy freehold of my semi-detached property and have approached the landlord. The lease is for 800 years and ground rent is 7£ per annum. The previous owners have done a loft conversion . I being a first time buyer was unaware of the consent thing and had trusted that solictors will sort...
    26-09-2020, 20:36 PM
  • Front garden to parking
    by mikkimolly
    I have a long lease on a flat in a Victorian converted building with a demised parking space on the driveway. The Landlord is currently selling the two other flats in the building, which previously were tenanted. To make them more profitable he has concreted over the front garden to create a parking...
    25-09-2020, 15:10 PM
  • Reply to Front garden to parking
    by mikkimolly
    Thanks Scott, yes this has been a wakeup call for me, believing that the church would act in good faith. Being told that their changes would not impact my lease, when i asked for further and better details of the changes was arrogant and patronising. I have mulled this over and decided to seek specialist...
    26-09-2020, 19:00 PM
  • management and maintenance costs for parking court
    by cooked
    sorry this may in the wrong forum but I could not see a forum title which was relevant
    my wife and I own (leasehold) two flats in a block of 3 flats
    each of the 3 flats has two parking spaces in a 30 space parking court
    in 2018, we became the RTM for the building but the parking court...
    25-09-2020, 22:30 PM
  • Reply to management and maintenance costs for parking court
    by AndrewDod
    What does your lease say?
    What the lease says is what you do.

    I doubt the lease and RTM order say that they can charge a massive fee for managing the car park....
    26-09-2020, 17:29 PM
Working...
X