Managing agent threaten to court

Stesshead

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Just make doubly doubly sure that either they do owe you or they have not addressed your previous requests for information. Then let them take you to court. It will be a fairly nervewracking time, but basically as long as you have been requesting information, if they don't give it to you, they cannot base their court case on information they have not given you. You can also have a nother shot at them by filing a counterclaim and demand the information you require under discovery. Done carefully and being meticulous about the prehearing stages, you should be able to reach a point of saying OK, we owe £X and settle without it reaching a hearing. Basically, they undermine their case by withholding information from you.

If we can reach agreement before hearing, who will pay the legal cost? thanks

Fire_Fox

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I'm no expert on court, I have won a thing or 2 before court - and the basic principle is that if you ask for some info before it goes to court and it is info you could get in discovery and you need it to sort out exactly how much is owed, the costs meter only starts rolling against you once the info is supplied and you have ahd a chance to digest it

But this shouldn't be a court case, disputes of this nature should automatically be referred to an LVT. You don't want to start legal action with a solicitor, then get referred six months down the line and find you can't get all the costs because the legislation/ long lease doesn't provide for it. I don't get the impression from the law you get to choose whether your leasehold issue gets dealt with by a court or an LVT, they each have their own roles which don't overlap.

I don't think this information is required to sort out how much is owed, there has been an overpayment on one invoice and an underpayment on a different invoice entirely. You can't refuse to pay your ground rent because the cleaning isn't up to scratch, even tho you pay the two sums to the same management company. This is often where leaseholders come unstuck.

Stesshead wrote: »

Indeed I need to learn the rule of the game. And your right, I am at the moment confusing two issues, disputing 2008 invoices does not automatically mean I dispute the 2009 invoice, so I need to either find a good reason to question the 2009 invoice or pay up now and start a new round of chasing refund this time next year if there is surplus:(

We will help you learn the rules, don't stress. Sounds like it has the potential to be an open and shut case.

BitterAndTwisted

In my own experience the balancing service charge documentation should show all expenditure for the whole property broken down by category. Then, possibly on a separate page there should be your percentage of the whole declared on the document. How would they be able to confirm your proportion otherwise?

I have to say, based on my own experience in commercial property management personnel are spread extremely thinly, especially now and property management accounts even more so. Service-charge accountants are very hard to come by because it's such a deadly tedious and attention-to-detail job. Never mind the full and frank discussions between the accountants and the surveyors about what is properly the tenants' expenses and the client's and which category they want said expenses squeezed into this week! I'm currently unemployed and I'd rather not take that kind of job. This is probably one of the main reasons you haven't received a satisfactory response as it won't be the accountant who needs to respond to you but the surveyor because they are the b*ggers who are supposed to have read and understood the leases, the accountant works from the info supplied by them.

Stesshead

Fire_Fox wrote: »

But this shouldn't be a court case, disputes of this nature should automatically be referred to an LVT. You don't want to start legal action with a solicitor, then get referred six months down the line and find you can't get all the costs because the legislation/ long lease doesn't provide for it. I don't get the impression from the law you get to choose whether your leasehold issue gets dealt with by a court or an LVT, they each have their own roles which don't overlap.

I don't think this information is required to sort out how much is owed, there has been an overpayment on one invoice and an underpayment on a different invoice entirely. You can't refuse to pay your ground rent because the cleaning isn't up to scratch, even tho you pay the two sums to the same management company. This is often where leaseholders come unstuck.



We will help you learn the rules, don't stress. Sounds like it has the potential to be an open and shut case.

I will try to avoid court if I can get it sorted some other way. People say anything can happen at court. Letter, letter first thing in the morning. Thanks for all your advice and I will come back for more

DVardysShadow

Fire_Fox wrote: »

But this shouldn't be a court case, disputes of this nature should automatically be referred to an LVT. You don't want to start legal action with a solicitor, then get referred six months down the line and find you can't get all the costs because the legislation/ long lease doesn't provide for it. I don't get the impression from the law you get to choose whether your leasehold issue gets dealt with by a court or an LVT, they each have their own roles which don't overlap.

Cross purposes. Managing agent is threatening court - as per title of thread. I am basically arguing to get things lined up to have a defensible position in court. Once Agents lawyers see that what is on offer is what a court would award, it really does take the rug from under their feet. Of course LVT is better, but for both court and LVT it is best to get the counterclaim lined up

If we can reach agreement before hearing, who will pay the legal cost? thanks

Generally each side pays its own costs, but they are part of the negotiation. The point is to effectively get your counterclaim in now in terms of communication with Agent - regardless of whether it goes to court.

Fire Fox will be right about LVT - if she says it is a better way, then I will agree. But Agent could take this down the court route - you want to be able to defend this. Despite court being a lottery, the correct judgement is you should pay 2009 and they should refund 2008 excess - and if that is the case you make, then you are extremely likely to win - particularly if you are seen to be offering that from the outset


Claim: 2009 service charges - amount £X
Admission: Admitted in prior correspondence £50% of X already sent

Counterclaim: Overpayment of 2008 Service charges - amount unknown but information requested
Agent may admit or deny - but if they don't deal with it in prior correspondence, defendent can obtain discovery

Defendent obtains discovery, Agent admits counterclaim - amount £Y
Defendent or Agent remit difference between claim and counterclaim

Court does not alocate hearing and says why did agent not pony up info?

Stesshead

I am back again! I have been tearing my hair out at work today thinking about the formal letter to the managing agent. Atm, my mind is messy. I think I have an idea, I appreciate if you can advise if this is a good idea or not.

I will write to the managing agent telling them

1. I require them to either confirm the credit amount on 2008 account or deny with reason.

2. Because the 2009 bill is of the the same amount as the 2008 bill, and due to the fact that 2008 actual expenses are a lot lower than the budget, I will question the reasonableness of the 2009 bill.

3. I will say I offer to contra the credit amount on 2008 account and pay the remaining balance of 2009 bill to close this case. But I reserve the right to ask for credit back once the 2009 s/c is audited this March.

I think in this way, I can get credit back for 2008 and dispute the 2009 bill at the same time, so even if the managing agent send the case to court, I am prepared to ask for the case transfer back to LVT since I disputed the 2009 bill.

Is this workable or am I being naive? Thanks in advice for all your advice

DVardysShadow

Stesshead wrote: »

I am back again! I have been tearing my hair out at work today thinking about the formal letter to the managing agent. Atm, my mind is messy. I think I have an idea, I appreciate if you can advise if this is a good idea or not.

I will write to the managing agent telling them

1. I require them to either confirm the credit amount on 2008 account or deny with reason.

2. Because the 2009 bill is of the the same amount as the 2008 bill, and due to the fact that 2008 actual expenses are a lot lower than the budget, I will question the reasonableness of the 2009 bill.

3. I will say I offer to contra the credit amount on 2008 account and pay the remaining balance of 2009 bill to close this case. But I reserve the right to ask for credit back once the 2009 s/c is audited this March.

I think in this way, I can get credit back for 2008 and dispute the 2009 bill at the same time, so even if the managing agent send the case to court, I am prepared to ask for the case transfer back to LVT since I disputed the 2009 bill.

Is this workable or am I being naive? Thanks in advice for all your advice

It sounds good to me. Let's see what FireFox has to say

BitterAndTwisted

Generally, the service-charge on account demands should be based on the actual expenditure from the year before plus or minus expected variances (inflation, prices renegotiated etcetera) but if the reconciliations and balancing s/c calcs have been prepared right up to the wire, the current year may not have been amended to reflect that. Surveyors are the ones who set the budgets and if they're useless or overstretched your on account demand won't have been amended either.

Service-charge affairs are often the poor-relations in property management except where getting your money off you is concerned. The client always paid particular attention to this where I worked. What is of most pressing concern is that unless all s/c demands are settled in full on demand this may handicap the agent's ability to pay suppliers for ongoing contracts. Credits and whatnot often get slid over onto the back-burner, hence your problem with the 2008 accounts.

Stesshead

Thanks Shadow for your reply. I am hoping in this way I will get covered if they do take the case to court.

A question about court, do I need a solicitor to present me or can I represent myself? And if I win at the court, I do not have to pay court fee right? thanks

Stesshead

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Generally, the service-charge on account demands should be based on the actual expenditure from the year before plus or minus expected variances (inflation, prices renegotiated etcetera) but if the reconciliations and balancing s/c calcs have been prepared right up to the wire, the current year may not have been amended to reflect that. Surveyors are the ones who set the budgets and if they're useless or overstretched your on account demand won't have been amended either.

Service-charge affairs are often the poor-relations in property management except where getting your money off you is concerned. The client always paid particular attention to this where I worked. What is of most pressing concern is that unless all s/c demands are settled in full on demand this may handicap the agent's ability to pay suppliers for ongoing contracts. Credits and whatnot often get slid over onto the back-burner, hence your problem with the 2008 accounts.

Thanks for explaining this to me. It takes the managing agent 6 months to get the accounts audited, so I kinda get the idea they are not organized at finance side of the things. I have been chasing them for building insurance certificate for the last two years, but guess what they said they do not have it :eek: Although on the lease, it says managing agent should arrange building insurance and we paid the premium in the service charge.