Advice on claim for legal expenses by landlord over missing Ground Rent

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

    #16
    Originally posted by L.Dina View Post
    I must admit, my sister and I are struggling to find the time between jobs and children that it takes to take on this case.
    Unscrupulous freeholders rely on people being too busy to challenge their unreasonable demands. Do take up Lawcruncher's kind offer of assistance, it is easier when you have someone knowledgeable on your side.

    Comment


      #17
      Thank you very much. I know it is the right thing to do to challenge it, so I'll do my best and will take the offer of help.

      Comment


        #18
        Has probate been obtained? Sometimes organisations will not deal with anyone after a death unless they can see a clear authority on who to deal with.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
          The clause quoted does not cover (a) an administration fee or (b) legal costs arising in connection with arrears of rent. Section 146 does not relate to rent as provided in subsection (11).

          If you email me the solicitor's letter I will draft a reply. See my PM for my email address.
          For the benefit of readers, will you please post an outline of the reply without any personal information.

          Comment


            #20
            Probate has been obtained.

            I have a letter to send, kindly drafted by Lawcruncher. I'll let you know what happens in the end.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by eagle2 View Post
              For the benefit of readers, will you please post an outline of the reply without any personal information.
              Suggested letter

              Dear Sirs,

              I have now taken advice from a landlord and tenant specialist lawyer.

              I quote the relevant clause in the lease:

              "To pay all reasonable costs charges and expenses (including legal costs and fees payable to a Surveyor) properly incurred by the Landlord and Head Landlord in or in contemplation of any proceedings or the service of any notice under sections 146 and 147 Law of Property Act 1925 including the reasonable costs charges and expenses aforesaid of and incidental to any inspection to ascertain whether any notice has been complied with and such costs charges and expenses shall be paid whether or not forfeiture for any breach shall be avoided otherwise than by relief granted by the Court."

              The first point to make is that the clause does not cover the landlord’s administration expenses in connection with anything, let alone the late payment of rent. Accordingly that sum is not payable.

              The second and far more important point is that section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 does not apply to non-payment of rent as provided in sub-section (11). It therefore has to follow that no costs can be payable in respect of a section 146 notice.

              In view of the above I have paid the outstanding rent to the landlord, stating expressly that the remittance is to be applied to rent, which if I owed anything for costs or anything else (which is denied) I am entitled to do.

              If any further demand for costs is made I shall have to treat it as harassment on the grounds that forfeiture is being threatened when no grounds for forfeiture can be made out.

              Your faithfully,

              Comment


                #22
                By way of an update; I did not hear anything at all from the solicitors after I sent the above letter that Lawcrucher drafted for me. I have since received a statement from the landlord agency which still had the owed rent on it as well as some smaller fees for notifying us of missed payments. I told them that I had paid the money to the solicitors and told them that we were not liable for the fees and have not heard back from them since. I do still feel that this might not be over, but that is the story so far.

                Comment


                  #23
                  thanks for the update lets hope thats the end of it

                  Comment


                    #24
                    I understood that you were going to pay the agent, not the solicitor. I recommend that you ask the agent for a complete statement of account showing all your payments.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      The letter we got said to pay the solicitor, so that's why I did that, although I am starting to wonder now if that was the correct thing to do. I'll ask for a statement.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by L.Dina View Post
                        The letter we got said to pay the solicitor, so that's why I did that, although I am starting to wonder now if that was the correct thing to do. I'll ask for a statement.
                        You will be fine so long as you said the money you remitted was for rent.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Just looking at what has happened to other leaseholders in a similar position, if you pay the solicitors, their costs are usually deducted from the payment before a net amount is transferred to the agent and credited to you. Payments to the agent are usually accepted on account of the charges and credited in full. So for the benefit of other readers, I would recommend payment to the agent. With the rogue operators, it is unlikely to end there, yet more administration charges are often added and it usually requires a FTT application to resolve. Complaints to the SRA are usually met with the response that it is a legal matter between the parties and they cannot intervene.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            eagle2,

                            The crucial point, whoever you pay, is to expressly say that the payment is to be applied as rent.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              The difference is that the monies paid to a solicitor are unlikely to be credited by the freeholder or agent and it is more difficult for a leaseholder to recover monies from the solicitor. The SRA is unlikely to assist leaseholders with legal matters and surprisingly, it does not seem to consider that these solicitors have acted contrary to its principles. So, I recommend that readers pay the freeholder or agent, not the solicitor. I agree that it should be made clear what exactly is being paid and what is disputed.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • Ground Rent review
                                by Century
                                United Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council

                                Does this case mean that for a residential lease failure to give notice of GR increase during the review period doesn't matter? I.e review can be at any time, even after specified review date?
                                11-08-2022, 14:47 PM
                              • Reply to Ground Rent review
                                by Lawcruncher
                                I think the way the law sees it is that the tenant has a lease with the provision in it and knows that on certain dates the rent will increase and on what basis.



                                Must be the same developer and/or conveyancer.

                                Having a rent review for a ground rent is not generally...
                                12-08-2022, 12:18 PM
                              • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                                by Limply
                                According to the lease, the roof and the roof structure are included in the Demised Premises. There is no mention of the space above the roof.

                                And wow I wasn't expecting that many answers! In any case, the other leaseholder (we are only 2 in the house) is open to buying the freehold so...
                                12-08-2022, 12:17 PM
                              • Freeholder Premium to consent
                                by Limply
                                Hi all,

                                I am looking at extending my leasehold flat by adding a newbuild next to the loft (will be erected on top of the first floor). I have just asked my freeholder for the process to follow. In the past they have asked me to pay a "Landlord’s premium for the consent to be established
                                ...
                                11-08-2022, 16:20 PM
                              • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                                by AndrewDod
                                Not sure it does suggest that (either the no-ownership or the inferiority). A contract can be an asset in itself.

                                Some contracts are worth a lot (A New York Yellow Taxi Token was worth a $million until Uber came along).

                                Yes "You have no ownership in the building"...
                                12-08-2022, 12:12 PM
                              • Reply to Ground Rent review
                                by Century
                                Thanks Lawcruncher! That is hardly an equitable situation for the leaseholders, but if that’s case law then so be it.
                                BTW I have residential properties in three separate developments and all have identical clauses to 3.1 and 3.2 as posted above...
                                12-08-2022, 11:58 AM
                              • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                                by Lawcruncher
                                It is more than mere semantics. For a start, on a forum which purports to give legal advice, we should not be saying anything which is not true. "You have no ownership in the building" is not true.

                                A tenancy is a tenancy is a tenancy. All tenancies have something in common. However,...
                                12-08-2022, 11:49 AM
                              • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                                by Lawcruncher
                                I was interrupted while writing post 12 and posted it before reading posts 10 and 11.

                                Of course if any improvement involves extending into an area not included in the demise the landlord can demand a premium for extending the area of the demise. Any discussion about how the premium should...
                                12-08-2022, 11:12 AM
                              • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                                by Lawcruncher
                                "...not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed" does indeed indicate there is no absolute prohibition. No premium can be charged, only legal or other expenses properly incurred in connection with the consent. If the landlord comes up with silly figures or wants a fee to consider whether he...
                                12-08-2022, 11:01 AM
                              • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                                by AndrewDod
                                Not sure I am following your answer here Lawcruncher
                                In this case the proposal is to build outside of their demise.
                                Certainly there is no computed entitlement, but if agreed the premium is likely to be at least half the added value. So it falls into your (1) with that as a typical premium....
                                12-08-2022, 10:57 AM
                              Working...
                              X