Duplicated insurance cover - freeholder at fault?

[MichaelD]

I took out buildings insurance on a flat I purchased, in October 2010 - due to an absent freeholder. The freeholder turned up in June 2011, whereupon I requested insurance documents from him. Despite several written requests since, he's only now (Nov 2013) provided insurance documents, although he first billed me for my portion of the insurance in December 2012 (for a policy taken out in March 2011).

I had mentioned to him with each request for insurance documents (since June 2011) that I was having to incur the cost of my separate insurance until he provided documentary proof of the buildings insurance he'd taken out.

Two questions arising from this: Is it reasonable for me to deduct the insurance costs I've incurred (for the given period) from what he is charging? And how does the 18 month rule affect what he can charge (policy taken out March 2011, first billed to me December 2012). Thanks for your help...

Mike

[leaseholdanswers]

In this case unless he advised you prior to the September 2012 of the cost of the insurance and that it would demanded from you, the 18 month rule will apply.

The other issue is whether the costs in the year which includes March 2011c can be billed in Dec 2012- the lease will specify how and when charges are due.

His defence might be that even if the policy was taken out in March if he was not billed until after June 2011 then he incurred the costs then ( not in March when the policy was placed) and billed you within 18 months.

You will of course be aware that any demands must also contain the right statutory information.

Add to that that you have a right to request a summary of the policy and cover and following on form that sight of the policy, you might argue that failure to respond to that request which you made in accordance with your rights under section 30A LTA 1985 as revised by sch 3 LTA 1987, it was a criminal offence to respond.

His defence might be that your request did not clearly exercise that right.

However on balance it should be enough to make him go away failing which you will as the FTT to make a written determination of payability. IN that application reference to S30A rights might get you a determination that your request did comply and then you can wander to the local magistrates and get him fined.

[MichaelD]

Very helpful - thanks.
Mike

[andydd]

Very helpful - thanks.
Mike

I seem to recall an LVT decisions where the tribunal considered the LH was reasonable to insure the property as the FH hadn't responded to any requests and that the amount charged by the FH was unreasonable and not payable.

[leaseholdanswers]

I seem to recall an LVT decisions where the tribunal considered the LH was reasonable to insure the property as the FH hadn't responded to any requests and that the amount charged by the FH was unreasonable and not payable.

Yes thats right its an established right especially if the insurance or service charge is reserved as rent, if you can prove the landlord was in default and was put on notice and then failed to reassure or respond.