Need to adjust service charge % contributions

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

    #16
    But it is fact that the system of RV is historical and is no longer revisable. It exists as only an effective way of calculating costs for properties which haven't changed since the original district surveyor carried out his valuation in 1973. RV can't function and isn't relevant in the current world where let's say a leaseholder extends the boundaries of his property or where doubt is cast over the original valuation. Surely, that makes RV defunct and as good as abolished.

    Earlier, I spoke to the Valuation Office Agency who said that they would be more than happy to visit the the flat in question but warned that they would not isolate their valuation to just that one unit but would reassess all of the them under the new banding system and not RV.

    Comment


      #17
      If only the deed of variation had said "provided the rating system were abolished" as opposed to "provided the rateable value were abolished"...

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by sticksandstones View Post
        But it is fact that the system of RV is historical and is no longer revisable. It exists as only an effective way of calculating costs for properties which haven't changed since the original district surveyor carried out his valuation in 1973. RV can't function and isn't relevant in the current world where let's say a leaseholder extends the boundaries of his property or where doubt is cast over the original valuation. Surely, that makes RV defunct and as good as abolished.

        Earlier, I spoke to the Valuation Office Agency who said that they would be more than happy to visit the the flat in question but warned that they would not isolate their valuation to just that one unit but would reassess all of the them under the new banding system and not RV.
        We have agreed that RV is no longer applicable as per post 6.

        However the issue is that one flat is paying less than they ought, and therefore an application to the LVT is the way forward, if all cannot agree to do so. In the abscence of the lease or deed allowing for revision a deed of variation is essential to clarify the position for the future.
        Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

        Comment


          #19
          Sorry but you're still wrong. RV is relevant and applicable because that's what the leases say.
          No amount of grumbling changes this- only a Deed of Variation (or equivalent Court Order) will.
          JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
          1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
          2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
          3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
          4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

          Comment


            #20
            You are overlooking the finer points of the issue; there is we are told an issue of one flats contributions. As RV cannot assist in resolving this*, it will not be relevant in solving this issue when making this application as an appropriate measure can be used and the variation of the lease creates the opportunity to do so.

            * I cannot ignore that the concern may as often happens arises out of illfounded rumour and speculation and that the RV used at the time of grant is still reflective of a fair and reasonable proportion of costs.
            Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

            Comment


              #21
              I've been made aware of a case which went to the LVT and then to the high court: Morgan Vs Fletcher (2009). Originally, the leaseholders complained to the LVT that their charges came to 116%. The landlord reduced the figure to 100% but the leaseholders complained that the amounts were disproportionate. The LVT adjusted the leases of the tenants to balance out the contributions but the landlord appealed through the high court who allowed the appeal. The court said that section 35 of the LTA was intended for surplus or deficient contributions and not unfairly disproportionate service charges. The court refused to interfere in the contractual freedom of the parties.

              The second part of the above case seems to be a similar problem to mine. Is anybody aware of this case and where does that leave me?

              Comment


                #22
                Morgan v. Fletcher is a case heard by the United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Its reference is [2009] UKUT 186 (LC), it related to the correct interpretation of section 35(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and it can be found at http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean The Judge held that the section's aim was where the total % contributions came to a figure greater or less than 100%. He held that subsection (4) must be construed as if the word “if” reads “only if” and the application failed because the total % contributions did come to 100%.
                JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                Comment


                  #23
                  It is a very narrow interpretation, and not one that many of us who do these would agree with. In your case I would argue that the limited nature of your clause on apportionment should be amended to allow proper review in future. I can recall at least three instances where this was part of an applicants comments and argument ( usually the last gasp one) on service charges and the panel suggested that they make a seperate application.

                  As suggested earlier a majority application on the basis that there is a manifest inequality will assist your position.

                  If you are resolved in this then I would suggest acquiring floor plans or calculate an approximation of the floor areas to see if the difference is real and substantial. If it is a matter of a few percent then I doubt you would progress.
                  Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X