Originally posted by jrsteeve
View Post
If, for example, the leases all say that "a reasonable proportion" is to be paid, and aren't specific about how costs should be split between the two blocks, it might be possible to argue that the new way of dividing service charges is reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the lease.
If changing the way the blocks are managed can be argued to not breach the leases, I would think that consideration would have to be given to whether an 'estoppel' would apply - either to prevent the RMC from changing to managing the blocks separately, or (if the change happened long enough ago, without being challenged by leaseholders) if the leaseholders would be considered to have accepted the change.
I would expect that any leaseholders who are not paying could not be considered to have accepted the change.
Originally posted by jrsteeve
View Post
Non payment may be an indication that the leaseholders have objections to the way that the RMC is operating - and if the leases clearly state that the two blocks should be managed as one, with all costs shared, demanding service charges for the blocks separately may mean that the demands aren't actually payable.
Leave a comment: