Re-Issue of Demand which currently does not meet S.47 requirement

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

    #16
    Thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to my post. The freeholder's have settled via their solicitor today. So hearing is cancelled. They have agreed to waive the Management fees which was my main challenge. This was chiefly on account of them being in breach of lease for maintenance

    Comment


      #17
      Good news then.

      On the above points, we've yet to actually see any FTT decisions yet (unless some of you actually have) and what effect the new CPR-like rules and procedures will have, although I guess it will make Tribunals act more professional and more like courts and less in the 'informal' way like many thought the LVT was........(untill a challenge went to the Upper Tribunal !).
      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


        #18
        Originally posted by siva View Post
        Yes the LL can issue a new demand and it becomes payable. There was some dispute over whether costs incurred more than 18 months before the corrected demand were payable but case law has decided that re-issue of a corrected demand effectively fixes the original demand.
        Just want to check as I have not been on the forum for about a year! Our service charges were not demanded with the correct summary, they didn't put it right until 10 days after the 18 month rule, but reading this thread it seems that there is no 18 month rule anymore! They are still demanding it and have given us 7 days until they start legal proceedings. They are still not demanding in accordance with the lease and the summary is still not in a 12 point form.

        Comment


          #19
          No idea where you got that from

          If I recall those service charges were demanded in advance and therefore it does not apply ( s20b applies to 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


            #20
            Could Andy update us as to the position of his summary judgement.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by hollyhead View Post
              They are still demanding OLD service charges and have given us 7 days until they start legal proceedings. They are still not demanding in accordance with the lease and the summary is still not in a 12 point form.
              Always be careful if the intention ( by anyone on here ) is to get out of paying service charges, then if there is no money in the bank to maintan the property, not enough in to pay for the insurance when due, that could spell disaster and bankrupcy, and freehold reverting to the crown in most cases.

              also, any money the Management company spend on legal "stuff" to get the service monies paid, will come out of the service charge account, leaving the"comany" with even less money, which is your money you put in previously, and if no money in bank, the shareholders- i.e. the leaseholders will be asked to input money to stop going bankrupt,

              Always be careful if you withold payments.

              We have Fire and safety items to do, costing a lot of money, and if people withold the service chargs, the company will get sued for failing to protect the residents, and if an accident happens that could have been prevented by having the money to spend, but it was with held, the directors could be sued, may be even for the death of a leaseholder.

              ( £ 1 million pound settlement, divided by number of shareholders ! )

              Comment


                #22
                That is an unlikely worse case scenario in my opinion.

                My experience is that the FH still has plenty of money (from other properties), the insurance is paid and I have saved (and successfully sued him for) many thousands of pounds due to his incompetence, money which I have put to good use

                Its true that legal expenses MAY be recoverable via the service charge but only if the lease allows and if the FH has been sending out invalid demands/acting unreasonably then a S20C application should be succesfull.

                It is however important to make sure you know the lease back to front before you start withholding money, it is always best to pay what you believe is owing, here is an interesting new LVT case regarding a FH acting unreasonable in 'trying it on' to recoup admin charges he clearly wasn't entitled to. > http://www.residential-property.judi...3_13_36_03.htm
                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


                  #23
                  Originally posted by ram View Post


                  also, any money the Management company spend on legal "stuff" to get the service monies paid, will come out of the service charge account, leaving the"comany" with even less money, which is your money you put in previously, and if no money in bank, the shareholders- i.e. the leaseholders will be asked to input money to stop going bankrupt,
                  ! )
                  Well no as legal costs have to be allowed under the lease, other wise the company has to find the money for that or for shortfalls in general, except that not all articles allow the company to seek contributions !.

                  The point here is that if the demands are correct then the company can proceed stright away with recovery actions as not getting demands right is like starting a race with your laces tied, you trip over.
                  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


                    #24
                    Originally posted by andydd View Post
                    It is however important to make sure you know the lease back to front before you start withholding money, it is always best to pay what you believe is owing, here is an interesting new LVT case regarding a FH acting unreasonable in 'trying it on' to recoup admin charges he clearly wasn't entitled to. > http://www.residential-property.judi...3_13_36_03.htm
                    The point to note is "never withold" but "exercise your rights". Ask ithe freeholderto respond to questions and if they fail to adequately, then ask the FTT to determine and then withold pending determination.
                    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


                      #25
                      Originally posted by andydd View Post
                      That is an unlikely worse case scenario in my opinion.
                      My experience is that the FH still has plenty of money
                      As representing the freeholder, here we have almost zero in the bank account at the end of the year, EVERY year.

                      Therefore if everyone withholds their anticipated service chage demand, we don't get jobs done, or the building insured 3 months after the start of the financial year. It's as simple as that.

                      In most blocks of flats ( house conversions ) people refuse to build up capital in the bank account as they can not get it back when they sell, so they don't put it in, therefore, service charge money runs out at the end of the finacilal year.
                      Often, when asked to save for a new roof or drive, they say they don't have the money.

                      So if you say, as a generalisation, "the freeholder has a lot of money", that is incorrect at our establishment.
                      The freeholder is in effect, the shareholders, who still have no money.

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X