Communal area

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

    #16
    Hi. Just downloaded a few FTT cases at random out of curiosity. Only one of sample was a single leaseholder. Respondent only went and supplied a list of happy campers who signed to say so and Judge made comment that "weight needed to be given to this". Found problems but deferred making a decision, effectively making applicant need to apply again if things didn't improve. I would lose the will to live.

    You don't say if you have talked to others? If directors are such a shower maybe you are not a minority of one. Might get witness statements in support - at least that way head off a similar list of happy campers.

    Also, I agree with RAM's assertiveness but Judge might not like reading about vexatious 'hostility', and common tactic to undermine leaseholder's case by referring to history of hostility. Far better to write polite prose dripping with exasperated pain and confusion at experiencing so much variation from reasonably expected professional standards of management. Unable to determine if landlord/agent knows what they must do and fails to do it, or doesn't know, which is more of concern. Not that one wishes to cast aspersions, naturally.
    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
      Sorry, meant to give case reference to example mentioned. Twas MAN/ooEU/LAM/2017/0002. Applicant 1 of 36 flats. See para 18 re other happy campers and Tribunal's "must give them some weight, particularly as the applicant, notwithsanding the passage of time, remained a lone voice within the application".

      Makes sense to have backup in agreement I'd say. Shower to one, shower to all.
      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


        #18
        Thanks for that Mr Soffit, I have done same and found other cases where a single leaseholder has brought an application and won on occasions and my cas is getting worse by the moment...called a meeting and not one member would speak kept saying no comment, then they produced an eye watering roof repair, which all members have discussed between themselves and I am the last to know and told we want this doing now and will get the scaffolding errected....no surveyor or any other report to see, no photos and no section 20 consultation and told we need you to pay the monies for all new improvement works! I rest my case!

        Comment


          #19
          That in itself is not going to be enough violation for a manager appointment. If anything you would need to make a claim under the unreasonable service charges banner, but absence of S20 is just treated with a nod and a wink.

          Comment


            #20
            Is that your experience at your property Andrew?

            Comment


              #21
              The works thay are proposing are improvements NOT repairs, our lease allows for repairs ONLY!

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Starlane View Post
                ...then they produced an eye watering roof repair, which all members have discussed between themselves...
                Originally posted by Starlane View Post
                The works thay are proposing are improvements NOT repairs, our lease allows for repairs ONLY!
                You are contradicting yourself.
                You say that members discussed roof repairs, and then say that the work being proposed is 'improvements, not repairs'.

                Which is it?
                You also need to recognise that, in certain limited circumstances, improvements are likely to be allowable when a repair is needed - and in some cases they may even be legally required (for example, if a flat roof has to be stripped back and replaced legal specifications may mean that any insulation, or some other standards, have to be to better than they were previously.

                I agree with AndrewDod, what you describe would likely be better addressed in some way other than by trying to get a manager appointed (unless there are a lot of other issues), and a failure to carry out Section 20 consultation is unlikely to carry much weight in any challenge you make.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Starlane View Post
                  Is that your experience at your property Andrew?
                  Well yes. But breaking the law in terms of S20, and other aspects of leasehold law such as providing insurance and accountancy documents is basically allowed by the law. It is a structure of law that permits and facilitates lawbreaking.

                  That's putting it simplistically. But not doing S20 is just fine.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Hi Macromia, apologies for the slight confusion, at the members meeting one of the directors produced estimates saying that a repair needs doing, I had not seen the information beforehand so I took it away and on reading it through more fully and cross referencing the lease it reads new and the contractor put forward improvements required which the director said he wanted doing as its his flat...I put forward that we should appoint a surveyor and get a condition report done, comment was there was no obligation to appoint a surveyor however the building has not been inspected for 6 years and no cleaning maintenance has been done whatsoever, its all reactive stuff, they only do something when its falling apart, like the damp to the building, they have done absolutely nothing and one of the other leaseholders is living in damp conditions, that cant be right!

                    Comment


                      #25
                      No Andrew I disagree non compliance with section 20 is not fine! There are plenty of FTT cases which discuss prejudice the leaseholder has experienced by not following the right process and procedures and the FTT have sympathy in some cases and have reduced the amounts demanded by the freeholders.

                      By the way are you a Freeholder led building and are you a director?

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Exactly - there has to be demonstrated prejudice. Breaking the law by not doing S20 is fine in and of itself. Proving prejudice is pretty damn hard (and even more so in retrospect of works being done). Remember even with S20 the FH does not have to choose the lowest quote - so simply proving that the work could have been done at lower cost is not sufficient. Nobody is punished for not following S20 procedure. You might say it is not OK, but that doesn't help when the courts say that breaking the law is OK.

                        "By the way" - I have plenty of experience with the FTT.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Many thanks Andrew...well the first prejudice is no consultation and the costs are the first hurdle...then arguing it should be a repair and not improvement and total change is the next..its all improvement, as for appoint a manager I have a lot of other strong points not just this example.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            I have been involved with 2 FTT manager appointments - Bear in mind that Tribunal appointed managers are often crooks, and they don't report to anyone at all except the Tribunal itself (who don't give the proverbial S) so they do whatever they like. If you ever contemplate going this route you need to get advice from people like me about who not to appoint (I know about London).

                            Appointment of a manager is for when you have overwhelming management failure - it is not going to save you money - bank on spending at least triple of what your are currently with no actionable accountability at all.

                            The stuff you describe you would approach the FTT under the service charge procedure not AoaM. If you win that case, you might use that as ammunition for a AoaM case if the problem continues and is VERY SERIOUS. From what you describe so far (absence of S20) you may not succeed.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Yes I get that Andrew thank you it could be a situation jumping from one dodgy ship to another dodgy ship, I have weighed this up pros and cons and yes bills could increase I can see that especially when no repair and maintenance of the building has been done for years and the place needs a number of projects doing so I would guess they would rub their little crooks hands when they see us coming!!!

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • Right to Manage Costs
                                by Pariah81
                                Hi,

                                I am part of a residents association that is exploring right to manage (RTM).

                                We are a 30 flat block in the Ealing area.

                                We want to get advice on the process so how much should we be expecting to pay for our legals?

                                I'm also aware we have to pay...
                                21-09-2021, 13:48 PM
                              • Reply to Right to Manage Costs
                                by sgclacy
                                Reminds me of a riddle from the book by Feldman and Spratt - Five Frogs on a log

                                Five frogs are sitting on a log.
                                Four decide to jump off. How many are left?
                                Answer: Five
                                Why?
                                Because there's a difference between deciding and doing....
                                23-09-2021, 20:14 PM
                              • Reply to Right to Manage Costs
                                by Gordon999
                                Yes , many years ago I was organiser to buy the freehold , some leaseholders agreed to participate but when the time came to pay their share of the purchase funds, they dropped out.....
                                23-09-2021, 19:50 PM
                              • Reply to Right to Manage Costs
                                by lampshade
                                ERMmmm....it would be very interesting especially as our Freeholder, who owned the company that Managed the building gave the contract to another fringe company, and the fees doubled to £10k pa....and if 12 of us leave that will cause fee problems for the remaining 2 flats, but not our problem....will...
                                23-09-2021, 17:50 PM
                              • Reply to Right to Manage Costs
                                by Section20z
                                Yes, you should be able to. We did something similar for one of two blocks with same name just different flat numbers. First step is to get 6+ owners to take part and form a company to serve the notice. A reluctant freeholder will fight every step so you may need professional help to get it right....
                                23-09-2021, 17:35 PM
                              • Reply to Right to Manage Costs
                                by lampshade
                                Interesting....I have one lease in a total of 3 blocks totalling 34 flats. All managed under one managing agent appointed by the FH.
                                But each block, whilst seemingly are all connected there are 3 separate blocks of about 11 flats in each. Each block has both front and back entrance, and unique...
                                23-09-2021, 15:29 PM
                              • Reply to Reasonable solicitor fees?
                                by eagle2
                                You can insist on a summarised time record showing the number of hours spent by each grade of solicitor on the different aspects of the work involved. You can then compare it with your own solicitor's time records in order to raise a specific complaint.

                                Intead though, I suggest that you...
                                23-09-2021, 14:42 PM
                              • Reasonable solicitor fees?
                                by LizLease
                                After six long and tedious months of negotiations to extend the lase on a flat, we are nearing completion and I have been sent the final balance.

                                I was shocked to be presented with a £2,700 bill for the freeholder's solicitor fees. When I first inquired about renewing the lease, the freeholder...
                                21-09-2021, 17:17 PM
                              • Negotiating a lease extension
                                by LizLease
                                Hi all, I am new to the forum.
                                I am looking to extend the lease on a flat (currently under 70 years).
                                I received a quote from the freeholder and a valuation from a surveyor (£3k lower than the freeholder's figure).
                                I spoke to the leasehold Advisory Service who said to ask the surveyor...
                                21-01-2021, 12:44 PM
                              • Reply to Negotiating a lease extension
                                by sgclacy
                                Does that include the surveyor fee ?...
                                23-09-2021, 14:36 PM
                              Working...
                              X