How would LVT / FTT view these lease violations.

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

  • How would LVT / FTT view these lease violations.


    I know LHA will advise to ask FTT to appoint a manager, but in the meantime ....

    All flat owners are ( incorrectly ) directors. They have used their Directorship powers to not obey the lease.

    They use their directorship to ensure leaseholders do not get "sued" for any breaches of the lease, because that would mean they are sueing themselves.

    As the Directors are in effect, representing the freeholder, "could" it be said that certain breaches of the lease have been, for the rest of time, been waived.

    How would you get over to the LVT / FTT the fact that the Directors were not acting as Directors / freeholders, but as Leaseholders for their own gains, therefore no parts of the lease have been waived.

    There are various items that have not been complied with. Flats change ownership, and the next leaseholder thinks the lease does not apply to them, and they are made a Director by the other directors, thereby perpetuating lease breaches, with instructions not to sue leaseholders.

    Anyone come across this with the LVT ? and would LVT say, ( for items listed )well, it's gone on for 7 years, and you have therefore waived certain parts of the lease,

    therefore anyone can park anywhere, anyone can park on the common ground and block people in, anyone can make major alterations to the outside of the building, anyone can build a shed in the Garden.
    Rip out page 6, 8 and 15 of your lease, it no longer applies as it has been waived by the Directors.

    Need to go to the LVT, but don't want to waste my time.

    R.a.M.

  • #2
    Need to go to the FTT, as a pre cursor to appointing a Manager, but if lease covenants have been waived, there is then no point in appointing a manager via the FTT to ensure the lease is obeyed, if FTT say certain items which i need rectifying, have been waived because the directors were not acting as directors.

    Comment


    • #3
      A shareholder or director can litigate under company law however its far cheaper to get a manager appointment ideally as a recover in this case with the freehold interest.
      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


      • #4
        Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
        A shareholder or director can litigate under company law however its far cheaper to get a manager appointment ideally as a recover in this case with the freehold interest.
        yes, but, would the LVT ftt still say the directors with acting irresponsibly, in their own interests, flouting the laws and proceedures, are representing the freeholder, then the freeholder has waived the rights to covenants on page 6, 8 an 15,

        In other words, the freeholder decided not to take action for 7 years, therefore the covenants have been waived.
        I know it is impossible to state what the LVT will say, but in anyones opinion, what is the possiblity they will come to the waived conclusion ?

        Comment


        • #5
          Directors must act in the best interests of the shareholders. If the directors have obtained an advantage by failing to comply with company law I do not see how the failure to take action can amount to a waiver.

          Comment


          • #6
            There is an argument for estoppel, and some breaches may be waived, some migth not, however that is a matter of argument when considering the appointment of the manager as
            a what problems there are
            b what the solutions are

            If the case stacks against this them there are individual routes for damages etc and the company route and proceedings against the directors for failing to act in the best interests of the company or if they have entered into undertakings directly with leaseholders or shareholders.

            You can only resolve this through item by item review.
            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

            • Hidden Admin Fees
              37eeyore
              My son is a leaseholder in an ex local authority flat that is now owned by a housing authority. I have recently been checking his service charge bill and received a summary of charges and copies of the repairs invoices. When I matched up the invoices to the summary I discovered that every invoice had...
              28-01-2017, 13:32 PM
            • Reply to Hidden Admin Fees
              andydd
              Aha.;.thanks leaseholder64, not something I'd come across before and explains the reference to UC by the FH/LL. I havnt read the document completely but it makes some sense, for example a Service Charge would normally cover repair costs, etc and you would expect UC to cover this amount BUT Service Charges...
              23-08-2017, 16:05 PM
            • Reply to Hidden Admin Fees
              leaseholder64
              The real question is how do they come up with 15%. Splitting the excess over the fixed cost in proportion to input costs is a cheap way of meeting the UC apportionment conditions. That way, larger jobs will subsidise small ones, but that won't affect how much you actually pay. However, the 15% needs...
              23-08-2017, 14:30 PM
            • Reply to Hidden Admin Fees
              37eeyore
              The lease says - all other costs incurred by the Landlord in or in connection with maintenance or management of the building. No fixed fee mentioned although, as I said, we pay a fixed management fee.

              They have a qualifying long term agreement with a company to carry out all maintenance....
              23-08-2017, 13:59 PM
            • Reply to Hidden Admin Fees
              leaseholder64
              Although the RICS guidelines (which may not apply in all cases to RSLs) recommend a fixed annual fee covering the basic service, and routine maintenance, they do accept that:



              may be subject to additional charges, and 15% is in the right ball park. What they do say is that...
              23-08-2017, 13:48 PM
            • Reply to Hidden Admin Fees
              37eeyore
              It's not the management fee I object to. This is a fixed amount that we pay every year and is clearly stated on the service charge demands. What I object to is the 15% admin fee they they add to every repair bill before they charge us. The figure for maintenance on the service charge demand is a lump...
              23-08-2017, 13:11 PM
            • Reply to Hidden Admin Fees
              leaseholder64
              Looking further through the UC document, apportioning the management fee by input costs appears to be acceptable to the state.

              Looking at the actual legislation, the general maintenance element is covered not just for shared ownership cases, so I think that painting is in. Ground floor...
              23-08-2017, 13:01 PM
            • Reply to Hidden Admin Fees
              37eeyore
              Thanks for the in depth reply.
              I don't see how it affects the 15% admin fee they add on to invoices as these are only for repairs to the communal areas of the building. Everything else is included in the maintenance charges which don't have 15% added because they are covered by the management...
              23-08-2017, 12:52 PM
            • Reply to Hidden Admin Fees
              leaseholder64
              http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...s-guidance.pdf is or was the rules for paying service charges out of universal credit.

              Allowable charges are:


              In category A, the only allowable charges are:



              It is therefore necessary to separate communal...
              23-08-2017, 12:12 PM
            • Reply to Hidden Admin Fees
              andydd
              Yes thats a standard catch all clause, mine has one too, but an FTT would look at it and only allow actual costs incurred to be recovered, they cant just make up an amount..it would allow a certain reasonable cost of management to be recovered, either self management or more likel;y the cost of employing...
              23-08-2017, 11:46 AM
            Working...
            X