Benefit of FTT determinations?

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

  • andydd
    replied
    There are some applications to the FTT that can be done at no cost, cant recall what they are.

    It would seem that 90% of applications do involve an actual projected amount, its not really clear whether you can do what I did, which was ask general questions, (Can FH charge in advance, charge interest, etc) or whether you can ask about projected future service charges.

    At the time I was unemployed so there was no cost to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    I guess they might take the same view that I think I read about years ago regarding the county court. There, if you are asking for something other than money, you just pay the minimum fee.

    I guess that if someone is just asking for advice from the FTT, they can't really ask more than the minimum fee.

    Leave a comment:


  • mk_ll
    replied
    I can understand why the FTT fee for interpretation/determination would be calculated with a project cost if a project existed, but I'm surprised there isn't a single fee for pure interpretation.

    For example, the Landlord wishes to find out if they have the right to improve, or charge leaseholders for something that is maintenance of a thing that isn't specifically mentioned but could be inferred from some other term.

    The benefit being that the Landlord can have some clarity on the lease before embarking on a project / getting quotes / etc.

    I was reading a forum posting by a "Leasehold Consultant" who was berating Local Authorities for not doing the above and hence wondered how much it costs / how common it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • andydd
    replied
    Yes normally you would of been sent a demand and thus this would effect the FTT application cost, Im not sure about asking the FTT hypothetical questions, I did in my case and and got some bizarre contradictory answers that seemed at odds with the law, FTT's dont in general appear to be that happy answering such questions although S27 (3) would appear to allow them to look into the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Oh, well as you say, usually there is an amount of money the freeholder is asking for something, and this is the relevant amount for the FTT.

    Yes both parties have a right to respond if the other one applies.

    Leave a comment:


  • mk_ll
    replied
    How much does a determination cost with respect to interpretation of the lease? I've looked at the FTT fees and they are banded, so is it based on the estimated cost per leaseholder of the project that requires determination? Or do they have a fixed fee for getting such a determination?

    And if a Landlord applies for determination on interpretation, can the leaseholder respond / request a hearing / etc?

    Leave a comment:


  • andydd
    replied
    In theory, yes, you should pay the full amount and make another FTT application BUT I wouldnt do this, it would again cost you and its unlikley youd get any costs back.

    Many FTT's have commented that a LH shouldny withold all service charges in a dispute but should pay at least what he believes is owing, but like many FTT comments Im not sure that there is any legal basis for this.

    I'd be tempted to pay the amount the FTT adjudicated was reasonable with perhaps a small uplift in line with inflation (although is this not minus now ?).

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Thanks guys,

    You'll be pleased to hear that in due course the agents reduced all five lessees' service charge to what the FTT adjudicated.

    However, I just received this year's service charge bill. While not as outrageous as last year, the agent's fee is now just reduced by the amount of the VAT to £360, not the £200 that the tribunal judged.

    Have I got to keep going back to the FTT for determinations every year, if I want to contest this?

    Leave a comment:


  • andydd
    replied
    the FTT has a similar rule but there is no limit as to costs but the other party must of behaved unreseasonably or vexatious.



    Orders for costs, reimbursement of fees and interest on costs
    13.
    —(1) The Tribunal may make an order in respect of costs only—
    (a)
    under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act (wasted costs) and the costs incurred in applying for such costs;
    (b)
    if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in—
    (i)
    an agricultural land and drainage case,
    (ii)
    a residential property case, or
    (iii)
    a leasehold case; or
    (c)
    in a land registration case.
    (2)
    The Tribunal may make an order requiring a party to reimburse to any other party the whole or part of the amount of any fee paid by the other party which has not been remitted by the Lord Chancellor.
    (3)
    The Tribunal may make an order under this rule on an application or on its own initiative.
    (4)
    A person making an application for an order for costs—
    (a)
    must, unless the application is made orally at a hearing, send or deliver an application to the Tribunal and to the person against whom the order is sought to be made; and
    (a) S.I. 1998/3132
    10
    (b)
    may send or deliver together with the application a schedule of the costs claimed in sufficient detail to allow summary assessment of such costs by the Tribunal.
    (5)
    An application for an order for costs may be made at any time during the proceedings but must be made within 28 days after the date on which the Tribunal sends—
    (a)
    a decision notice recording the decision which finally disposes of all issues in the proceedings; or
    (b)
    notice of consent to a withdrawal under rule 22 (withdrawal) which ends the proceedings.
    (6)
    The Tribunal may not make an order for costs against a person (the “paying person”) without first giving that person an opportunity to make representations.
    (7)
    The amount of costs to be paid under an order under this rule may be determined by—
    (a)
    summary assessment by the Tribunal;
    (b)
    agreement of a specified sum by the paying person and the person entitled to receive the costs (the “receiving person”);
    (c)
    detailed assessment of the whole or a specified part of the costs (including the costs of the assessment) incurred by the receiving person by the Tribunal or, if it so directs, on an application to a county court; and such assessment is to be on the standard basis or, if specified in the costs order, on the indemnity basis.
    (8)
    The Civil Procedure Rules 1998(a), section 74 (interest on judgment debts, etc) of the County Courts Act 1984(b) and the County Court (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991(c) shall apply, with necessary modifications, to a detailed assessment carried out under paragraph (7)(c) as if the proceedings in the Tribunal had been proceedings in a court to which the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 apply.
    (9)
    The Tribunal may order an amount to be paid on account before the costs or expenses are assessed.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Thanks guys.

    I think I understand Mr Soffit's last comment a little better in light of some reading I've been doing today. I came across paragraph 10 of CLRA 2002:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/15/schedule/12

    Costs

    10(1)A leasehold valuation tribunal may determine that a party to proceedings shall pay the costs incurred by another party in connection with the proceedings in any circumstances falling within sub-paragraph (2).

    (2)The circumstances are where—

    (a)he has made an application to the leasehold valuation tribunal which is dismissed in accordance with regulations made by virtue of paragraph 7, or

    (b)he has, in the opinion of the leasehold valuation tribunal, acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings.

    (3)The amount which a party to proceedings may be ordered to pay in the proceedings by a determination under this paragraph shall not exceed—

    (a)£500, or

    (b)such other amount as may be specified in procedure regulations.

    (4)A person shall not be required to pay costs incurred by another person in connection with proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal except by a determination under this paragraph or in accordance with provision made by any enactment other than this paragraph.
    This limits the costs that can be ordered by the LVT to £500. However, of course, this is the FTT. Has the legislation been changed to refer to the FTT, or are they not bothering about it now?

    Leave a comment:


  • mattl
    replied
    I agree with the second point; not with the first as I rather keep threads intact than split them into pieces (but this may be personal preference).

    Leave a comment:


  • andydd
    replied
    Prob should be another thread but............

    Hardly any applications are 100% successful, a tribunal can decide if a S20C can be granted if "it considers just and equitable in the circumstances", unless in exceptional circumstances I cant see an Upper Tribunal interfering with the original decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    S20C appeal

    My freeholder's agents have applied to appeal the S20C decision because I was not 100% successful in my application. As I asked the FTT to look at all items, for me to have been 100% successful, the service charge would have to have been reduced to nothing.

    Any thoughts?

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholdanswers
    replied
    There is no standard procedure others can join the process or separate applications are made and the T asked to merge them into one hearing, though best of all is to all apply as one.

    S20c is a bit of " thats not what you asked for" as if asked correctly the landlord can be barred from adding cost to the service charges period not simply adding it to the service charge and crediting applicants against that element and charging everyone else their %

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Thanks Mr Soffit. Yeah, I paid up within a fortnight of the bill, back in August, and took management co to FTT. It cost me £125 for my application and another £190 for the hearing.

    FTT have found in my favour, reducing bill by over £1000. They have ordered my fees to be refunded, and ordered a S20C, that I applied for.

    Interesting that other flats can be charged for the management co's legal fees. Did someone forget to put that in the legislation?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Freehold confusion
    by davetg
    30 years ago I bought a flat from a friend. The freehold at the time was registered to my friend and the lady who owned the other flat. I understood at the time that I would replace the friend on the freehold but this never happened. This was not a problem until now as when work on the structure of...
    24-05-2022, 14:29 PM
  • Reply to Freehold confusion
    by sgclacy
    Your friend may not have to have his ID confirmed as the consideration will be far less than £5,000 and if he did form ID5 makes life a lot easier as it can be done via a video link...
    24-05-2022, 19:59 PM
  • Section 20
    by Anna1985
    So the lease allows for the property to be kept in good condition.
    Thus, the shared hall could be spruced up no problem, but there is an issue with driveway - partially it belongs to the freeholder, partially to the ground floor leaseholder - it is made out of the old paving stones, it looks...
    22-05-2022, 21:03 PM
  • Reply to Section 20
    by Anna1985
    3, it feasible but we have already enforce the lease via small claims process, due to failure to pay for upkeep.
    so, we would be going again but just really need to understand what is allowable and what is not...
    24-05-2022, 18:56 PM
  • Old managing agents accounts
    by jazzythumper
    Since obtaining the RTM and changing the managing agent, we have never been given full accounts / receipts for the previous year(s). We believe that as the old freeholder and leaser holder of one of the flats were represented by the same solicitor that prior to the sale of the freehold, we were subsidising...
    20-05-2022, 11:21 AM
  • Reply to Old managing agents accounts
    by jazzythumper
    So the only statement we have shows, the significant arrears of the aforementioned leaseholder, the only accounts we have ever received at handover were the balances and arrears of each leaseholder. This was never accounted for against actual costs. I presume we should have had this information. Can...
    24-05-2022, 16:27 PM
  • Reply to Freehold confusion
    by davetg
    Thanks for the reply - both flats have separate 999 year leases so i guess the freehold is of little value. I will look in to TR1.

    I have always insured my flat separately and assumed the other flat was doing the same - is this a problem?...
    24-05-2022, 14:48 PM
  • Reply to Old managing agents accounts
    by jazzythumper
    Thanks, I’m not sure that has been provided, if it hasn’t can we force them to produce this?

    Would it be a simple case of sending a letter with a timescale to respond and if not received followed by the magistrates route?...
    24-05-2022, 14:39 PM
  • Reply to Freehold confusion
    by Section20z
    1.He will need to sign a TR1 and transfer title to you but it really needs to be done through a solicitor or land registry won't be happy with his ID.
    2. If you have a separate lease on your flat then freehold is not worth much, if not then it's worth what the flats worth at least .
    3. Cost...
    24-05-2022, 14:37 PM
  • Reply to Share of feehold/shared service charges?
    by Stu1020
    Thank you for the response Macromia this is a useful conversation.

    I can see why the current proportion might be justified, I have been paying 38% towards the buildings insurance the last 4/5 years. However, my dispute is now arising because we are unable to move forward with existing covenants,...
    24-05-2022, 08:55 AM
Working...
X