How do i get my clown managing agent to supply me with appropriate information?

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

  • Originally posted by siva View Post
    OK, we do disagree and I've seen at least one LVT decision where a charge associated with a lease is deemed not in the LVT's jurisdiction (not rent). The type of admin charge that the LVT can decide upon are defined in sch. 11 of the Commonhold & Leasehold Act 2002.
    Well yes, but I referred to that earlier

    (1)In this Part of this Schedule “administration charge” means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent which is payable, directly or indirectly—

    (c)in respect of a failure by the tenant to make a payment by the due date to the landlord or a person who is party to his lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, or
    (d)in connection with a breach (or alleged breach) of a covenant or condition in his lease.


    As to the LVT jurisdiction they still haven't clearly worked out if notice fees are "in or out"
    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


    • Just found an LVT case where a charge falls outside of the LVT's jurisdiction. It's a registration charge. I believe that legal costs per se, if they don't qualify as a service charge, will not be classed as an administration charge. That is unless they are "in connection with a breach (or alleged breach) of a covenant or condition in his lease." or one of the other defined charges.
      I accept no legal responsibility for comments/advice I make on this forum. Please check with a solicitor before acting on statements made in a public forum.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
        Well yes, but I referred to that earlier
        I had a feeling we had our wires crossed! I don't see that (c) & (d) post you refer to. Either it's disapeared into the ether or I'm going doolally
        I accept no legal responsibility for comments/advice I make on this forum. Please check with a solicitor before acting on statements made in a public forum.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by siva View Post
          Just found an LVT case where a charge falls outside of the LVT's jurisdiction. It's a registration charge. I believe that legal costs per se, if they don't qualify as a service charge, will not be classed as an administration charge. That is unless they are "in connection with a breach (or alleged breach) of a covenant or condition in his lease." or one of the other defined charges.
          When you say registration charge that's what I as referring to in #121 as "Notice fees" sorry. Several of us read the President's deliberation on it and read it as self contradictory. The registration fees don't get caught under 1 (1) at all.

          The c and d bit is in #113 but I didn't quote it in full.

          Not a disagreement just a hearty discussion

          There was one decision a year or so ago where the s146 breach was tossed by the panel as being so silly and small as to be insignificant, but they allowed the costs to go forward under sch 11. The sch lacks a "reasonably incurred" which takes careful argument to get them to do, or, as Andydd says, either way you lose.

          Thats why I say if you have rights use 'em. It's cheaper.
          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


          • Originally posted by dant View Post
            The OP isn't referring to administration costs so the SOTRAO for such costs are not required.

            It is also irrelevant as to whether the Landlord has demanded payment of the legal costs or not, provided the tenant is liable to meet such costs as directed by the Lease, then they are payable.
            I disagree.

            A person cant just ask for his costs out of the blue, they must be recovered either:-


            1. As ordered by a court. i.e the normal way is loser pays, however LVT's have no such powers except to re-imburse fees and the £500 'unreasonable' amount. It appears to me that this is not the case here.

            or contractually (i,e under the lease).

            2. Via the service charge

            3. Via admin charge

            Many leases do not allow such costs, but most do allow S146 legal costs which would be recovered I believe as an admin charge. They would both need to be demanded in proper way. i.e with Summary and could be challenged at LVT.

            There certainly are LVT cases where a second case deals with the issue of costs recoverable under the lease.

            Andy
            Advice given is based on my experience representing myself as a leaseholder both in the County Court and at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.

            I do not accept any liability to you in relation to the advice given.

            It is always recommended you seek further advice from a solicitor or legal expert.

            Always read your lease first, it is the legally binding contract between leaseholder and freeholder.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
              But dant under c & d (above) legal costs are classed as admin costs....

              Any charges arising under the lease that are not service charges or rent are admin charges and the SI then does apply. And I have the LVT decisions that agreed with me

              Yes he is liable, however statute allows him the right to challenge their reasonableness, and is entitled to withhold them until they are billed with the summary.

              Sorry.
              Could you post the links to the LVT decisions please, LHA?

              Comment


              • A landlord’s contractual right to legal costs is not restricted by CLRA 2002, Sch 12 para 10(4) (Schilling v Canary Riverside, unreported, Land Tribunal LRX/65/2005), but I can see where an argument might lie to class such costs as admin, service charge (Iperion), or both.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by dant View Post
                  A landlord’s contractual right to legal costs is not restricted by CLRA 2002, Sch 12 para 10(4) (Schilling v Canary Riverside, unreported, Land Tribunal LRX/65/2005), but I can see where an argument might lie to class such costs as admin, service charge (Iperion), or both.
                  Sorry but 10(4) relates to the £500 costs awarded , or not, by the LVT, not to do with sch 11. Canary was inclusion of Costs in the SC, not by the tenant, which fall under s19, and a different test of reasonableness. Thats why there are two different orders for the summaries.

                  Before we get into a long debate, which I am up for , though I prefer to be paid *, might it be more productive here to consider where the OP is, locked in a spin of adjournments with no determination by the Court or agreement ( anyone confirm?) and if he has to pay it, or can challenge it.


                  * I can ask mod 2 to split in into a new thread. I already posted a reply but removed it as it was getting away from helping the OP. Shall I?
                  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


                  • Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                    Sorry but 10(4) relates to the £500 costs awarded , or not, by the LVT, not to do with sch 11. Canary was inclusion of Costs in the SC, not by the tenant, which fall under s19, and a different test of reasonableness. Thats why there are two different orders for the summaries.

                    Before we get into a long debate, which I am up for , though I prefer to be paid *, might it be more productive here to consider where the OP is, locked in a spin of adjournments with no determination by the Court or agreement ( anyone confirm?) and if he has to pay it, or can challenge it.


                    * I can ask mod 2 to split in into a new thread. I already posted a reply but removed it as it was getting away from helping the OP. Shall I?
                    I think it could be educational to continue but yes, perhaps a more appropriate thread would allow the OP to concentrate on the original issues raised.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dant View Post
                      A landlord’s contractual right to legal costs is not restricted by CLRA 2002, Sch 12 para 10(4) (Schilling v Canary Riverside, unreported, Land Tribunal LRX/65/2005), but I can see where an argument might lie to class such costs as admin, service charge (Iperion), or both.
                      In that case the costs in question had already been the subject of a s20C order application which was refused.

                      In this case the LL seems to be a little premature in threatening forfeiture for not paying legal costs. He is obviously annoyed that his settlement offer was rejected.

                      sbw, something that hasn't been mentioned. You are at risk of the CC awarding costs to the other side if you reject a settlement offer that is as good or better than the eventual decision given by the CC. Are you confident that the outcome will actually be better if you go to a hearing? The LL's solicitor may have a good point here for keeping this in the County Court.

                      I also wonder whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 will have a bearing if it turns out that the legal costs are not recoverable as a service charge buy as a direct charge on the tenant.
                      I accept no legal responsibility for comments/advice I make on this forum. Please check with a solicitor before acting on statements made in a public forum.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by siva View Post
                        In that case the costs in question had already been the subject of a s20C order application which was refused.

                        In this case the LL seems to be a little premature in threatening forfeiture for not paying legal costs. He is obviously annoyed that his settlement offer was rejected.

                        sbw, something that hasn't been mentioned. You are at risk of the CC awarding costs to the other side if you reject a settlement offer that is as good or better than the eventual decision given by the CC. Are you confident that the outcome will actually be better if you go to a hearing?
                        Strictly speaking, that only covers Part 36 offers, which must contain certain points/wordings etc :

                        http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...l/rules/part36

                        Comment


                        • Good morning.


                          The wording regarding this clause is as follows:

                          "all fees charges expenses and commissions payable to any solicitor accountant surveyor or architect whom the lessor may from time to time employ in connection with the management and or maintenance of the building including the cost of causing to be prepared statements of the annual service cost."

                          Thanks Stuart

                          Comment


                          • Hi Siva,

                            The offer made too me was a verbal offer over the phone and didnt contain any hard facts, it was simply put too me that the flat would be made habitable. being as ive been asking for these problems to be addressed since 2009 and the losses ive suffered i dont feel i could accept anything that wasnt detailed and more specific.

                            Cheers Stuart.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by sbw View Post
                              Good morning.


                              The wording regarding this clause is as follows:

                              "all fees charges expenses and commissions payable to any solicitor accountant surveyor or architect whom the lessor may from time to time employ in connection with the management and or maintenance of the building including the cost of causing to be prepared statements of the annual service cost."

                              Thanks Stuart
                              Well it looks like it's part of the service charge and will be payable in accordance with the terms of your lease in regard to service charge payments. This will be split between all leaseholders and may or may not be payable in advance and may or may not be payable only at certain times. Any demand for your share must be accompanied by a summary of tenats rights and obligations otherwise you can withhold payment.

                              At your court and/or LVT hearing you can ask for a s20C order which will, if granted, disallow the costs being added to the service charges. The LVT are usually happy to grant these if the LL has not been sufficiently successful in their eyes. I'm not sure about the Courts.

                              You could also make a separate s20C application to the LVT.

                              Before forfeiture will be considered the LVT will have had to decide that the costs are payable.

                              You can also challenge any service charges at the LVT. So even if a s20C order is refused you can still dispute whether the cost was reasonably incurred or reasonable in amount.

                              You could certainly argue that had the property been properly managed there would have been no need for any solicitor costs.
                              I accept no legal responsibility for comments/advice I make on this forum. Please check with a solicitor before acting on statements made in a public forum.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by siva View Post
                                I also wonder whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 will have a bearing if it turns out that the legal costs are not recoverable as a service charge buy as a direct charge on the tenant.
                                Well it is accepted that they do apply to leases and service charges and I pretty sure Canary wandered into that. However it is whether there is an imbalance. At it's heart section 146 sais " you messed up, fix it, or we take it back". There are many protections along the way but is arguable that the threat of not using say Dant but think of expensive West end chappies, to put the fear of God into a lessee. Moreover such clauses are widely accepted and indeed required so that the landlord can enforce covenants against others.

                                So whether it has relevance, yes, does it apply, depends as always on the facts and circumstances.
                                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

                                • Changing frequency of external and internal redecoration
                                  Lorimer
                                  Our lease states that the freeholder must do external re-decorations every 3 years and internal re-decorations every 5 years. We feel that this is too frequent and we would like to have the cycles spaced further apart e.g. external re-decorations every 5 years and internal re-decorations every 7 years....
                                  15-08-2017, 21:25 PM
                                • Reply to Changing frequency of external and internal redecoration
                                  JK0
                                  I'd have thought you could include a postscript to any extension to 999 years that the decorating is done less often. Presumably if every flat goes with UPVC windows in due course, you would only need to do masonry about every ten years?
                                  17-08-2017, 09:13 AM
                                • Reply to Changing frequency of external and internal redecoration
                                  Lorimer
                                  The only other thing that is obviously missing from the leases is the ability for the freeholder to pass on to the service charge any admin or legal costs incurred in taking or defending action against any of the leaseholders. We found that out recently from reading an old LVT decision on the building...
                                  17-08-2017, 06:12 AM
                                • Reply to Changing frequency of external and internal redecoration
                                  Lorimer
                                  Thanks for all your contributions. I am glad I posted the query as your responses at least confirm that the freeholder was not pulling the wool over our eyes when he said that the cycles cannot be changed informally and that he is legally bound to follow the terms of the leases.

                                  The consensus...
                                  17-08-2017, 06:06 AM
                                • Reply to Changing frequency of external and internal redecoration
                                  Gordon999
                                  If leaseholders can collectively buy the freehold , then stretching the interval between redecoration from 3/5 years to 5/7 years, you may be able to save £2K per flat over 7 years cycle . Also there is a saving of 7 years ground rent payment = £350 . total saving = £2350 .
                                  16-08-2017, 21:27 PM
                                • Residents association - getting to 60%
                                  dominco
                                  Hi All,

                                  Has anyone got any ingenious methods of getting membership of a newly formed RA to the 60% level needed for recognition by landlord? I'm talking about 650 flats with around two-thirds of owners overseas and/or not owner occupiers. The landlord is understandably not willing to share...
                                  14-08-2017, 23:28 PM
                                • Reply to Residents association - getting to 60%
                                  Gordon999
                                  RA is just an association with no legal powers. but RTM is a special purpose company with the legal right to take over the service charge account from the freeholder.

                                  The RTM would replace the managing agent appointed by the freeholder and take over collection of service charge levy...
                                  16-08-2017, 19:58 PM
                                • Right of first refusal
                                  Clayton
                                  we we are in a big block of flats where the ground rent is doubling twice. All the leaseholders have formed together and are considering purchasing the freehold. We have read that if the freehold was sold without notifying the leaseholders then you can buy it at the original price sold. The freehold...
                                  16-08-2017, 19:26 PM
                                • Reply to Right of first refusal
                                  Gordon999
                                  What do you mean by "ground rent is doubling twice" ?

                                  You should buy a copy of the freehold title from Land Registry Online and check out the title holder when the transfers of freehold were made.

                                  if the freeholder was a company before transfer to latest company...
                                  16-08-2017, 19:47 PM
                                • Reply to Residents association - getting to 60%
                                  dominco
                                  The estate consists of 3 physically distinct buildings (or plots) 1,2, and 3. Each building is further split into 'blocks'. For example building 1 has six blocks labelled A-F again all physically distinct with different storey heights and separate entrances and though the blocks back onto each other...
                                  16-08-2017, 17:14 PM
                                Working...
                                X