Freeholder won't go to the FTT. Previously called the LVT ?

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

    Freeholder won't go to the FTT. Previously called the LVT ?

    Have been absent here for 2+ years and have never had a situation resolved as the law is against leaseholders.

    Advice please ( again )
    Currently in another flat complex of 9 flats and am just a shareholder and leaseholder.

    Current concern is that the freeholder will not take any leaseholders to court or to the FTT, and they just have words with leaseholders in the hope the covenants of the lease will be upheld.
    There are no writen statements from the offending leaseholders that they are sorry and wont do it again. But they do it again, and the please stop going against the lease letters go out again and again.

    The directors ( letter from Company secretary ) state they have no money to spend their time or on the FTT or go to court, and that if they lose a case they cannot afford the legal fees.

    Question.
    Must the freeholder go to the FTT / court, or can begging letters to stop falling foul of the lease be continued to be sent, time after time. ?
    Would not going to the FTT or court put the freeholder in jepardy of what is called a waiver, if the same or similar covenants are breached ( is that the word ? )

    The leaseholders verbaly say the will stop doing what the have been told not to do, but months later, they do it again, and say wont do it again, but we know they will.

    #2
    What are the covenants that they breach?
    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


      #3
      The usual, which I think I have mentioned before for which I could not rectify without substantial costs to myself.
      It's the usual parking things that seems to be more and more common as time goes on.
      Parking more cars on the drive than there are spaces. Not parking in someone elses place, but behind their own cars, which is therefore on common ground, and causes or can cause some difficulty, but not much in passing. Mainly visitors. mainly one person in a flat all the time.

      The lease states from memory to park only in the spaces allocated to them ( allocated or demised, i cant remember ) and not to park anywhere else that is used in conjunction with other owners right of free passage across common ground. But i know I wont be able to do anything about it from previous answers on here.

      If only letters are sent and never goes to the FTT or court, will the freeholder waive the right to go to FTT or court in future if it is seen that letters only do not cure the problem, even if only curing the problem temporarily ? I know that the law is complicated, and have been reading up on waivers, and just a silly mistake, maybe unintentional mistake waives a covernant for ever ?
      They get their letter, it stops for a month or 3 months, then starts again and apparently another letter goes out. They say it was their visitor, they were told but wont park elsewhere.
      Trouble is if the freeholder does not see it, then it does not happen.

      Comment


        #4
        Maybe my post is misleading.

        If the freeholder only issues letters, and never goes to the FTT or court, and maybe the lease breach is curtailed, is there a chance the FTT will not entertain an application if the same thing happens again with the same or with another flat..

        Comment


          #5
          Assuming the issue is parking, then if they have written to the offenders who then comply then the breach has been remedied and waiver no longer applies. Some may argue that they didn’t comply and waiver does apply.

          It hastherefore the recipe for a right muddle where the lawyers get rich-while forfeiture might threaten them into complying today, the issue will arise again as a fresh breach. Injunctions on people are far more effective but the cost is rarely fully recoverable so the Board’s concern is justified.

          It is far more effective to

          A take individual measures to insert a removable parking post to secure your space, assuming it is demised or yours to use exclusively, and

          B the company spend its money on either
          -creating more spaces using cheap solutions like grasscrete
          -ditto having secured spaces as above charging for a key and rent to the new spaces
          -mixing that with some physical barriers to prevent fly parking bollards concrete plant tubs etc
          -or prevent as above any non space parking and securing the spaces so that there is nowhere to park except spaces
          After of course checking the lease on cost recovery and that the land that they will build on is not subject to any rights from the residents.
          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


            #6
            Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
            Some may argue that they didn’t comply and waiver does apply.
            thank you very much for your reply. I was concerned about waiver but as from your sentence above, it's still debateable, but as you explained, I think I can now be comfortable in the fact that if freeholder can be seen to address a problem, and the problem is remedied, therefore the freeholder has done what they are supposed to do. They took action, did not allow it to go on, and I think we can all say that waiver does not apply.

            Regarding your other suggestions, that is not possible, but will pass on your thoughts.

            Thank you

            Comment

            Latest Activity

            Collapse

            Working...
            X