Exorbitant council charges for major works on leasehold properties?

Fire_Fox

dander wrote: »

I suppose one of the disadvantages of having the council as leaseholder is that they have to arrange budgets and contracts in advance, so they're not set up to react if a major problem with a roof occurs - therefore they are going to try to pre-empt trouble and do things like this before it might be strictly neccessary. However, on the plus side, they do always have access to money to do these things, and can go ahead with the work and claim payments from leaseholders later.

Not unless they have formally consulted or sought special dispensation from an LVT in case of an emergency.

dander

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Not unless they have formally consulted or sought special dispensation from an LVT in case of an emergency.

Ah, you've misunderstood what I meant. I meant that when they embark on major works they don't have to seek payment upfront from tenants who don't want to pay, which could delay the work while the problem gets worse and worse, whereas with a privately run management company, just one problem tenant can cause huge problems by finding endless reasons not to pay their share of repair bills, denying it's neccessary etc and preventing the work from going ahead.

Fire_Fox

dander wrote: »

Ah, you've misunderstood what I meant. I meant that when they embark on major works they don't have to seek payment upfront from tenants who don't want to pay, which could delay the work while the problem gets worse and worse, whereas with a privately run management company, just one problem tenant can cause huge problems by finding endless reasons not to pay their share of repair bills, denying it's neccessary etc and preventing the work from going ahead.

AFAIK the majority of long leases only provide for service charges to be collected in advance, major works are usually (but not always) paid in arrears. Freeholders or management companies cannot abdicate their repairing obligations because some leaseholders default or there isn't enough money in the kitty. One leaseholder disputing should not necessarily prevent essential works from going ahead, simply apply for dispensation from the LVT.

• "The landlord must 'have regard to' the observations he has received. This does not mean he is obliged to follow or act on the comments, but, if challenged later at the LVT on the reasonableness of the costs, he will need to show that he paid due regard to observations or provide justification as to why he did not.

In cases where the works are considered urgent, for example, a leaking roof or a dangerous structure, or in other cases where the landlord wishes to proceed quickly, the landlord may apply to the LVT for an order to dispense with the consultation procedure. In such a case, the LVT will notify all service charge payers of the proposal."
http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=14

dander

Yes, you're still arguing with something that isn't the point I'm actually making.

Fire_Fox

I wasn't arguing anything, I was adding to what you said. I think anyone who seriously contemplates running their own management company is completely off their rocker, but if someone is going ahead they may stumble this thread and hence the LEASE website.

ET1976

Fire_Fox wrote: »

It doesn't matter that there is no social housing, under a long lease the council are your (superior) landlord, and much of the same legislation applies as it would with someone on an AST or protected tenancy. You shouldn't have been 'forced' to have the roof replaced you should have been consulted, at least two sets of documents sent to you. If the law was not complied with only £250 is recoverable: http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=20

I only mentioned the social housing thing in response to dander's comment "If none of the properties in your block are actually concil homes anymore, then I'd have thought you'd be at the bottom of the list for improvements anyway.". I was just illustrating that even though there aren't any council homes involved we're still having improvement works done.

The part of the LEASE website you mention is one bit I have read back to front Yes, there was what they term a 'consultation', but it's only a 1 stage process as there is already a long term major works contractor in place. The consultation goes like this:

• council sends letter of intention to replace roof, purely based on its age (by their own admission they have not even done a visual inspection)
• both leaseholders repsond with objections, citing 2 independent roofing experts reports that the roof is good for another 20-25 years
• council write back saying 'thanks for your letter, we will be replacing your roof during this financial year'

End of story. Net result is we are 'forced' into it.

Anyway, this wasn't meant to be a council-bashing thread. Having put all these things down I am coming round to the idea that sticking with the leasehold is probably the best option.

Thanks for all repsonses.

Fire_Fox

Did you ask to see the council surveyor's report on the condition of your roof? I don't know what you mean by an independent roofing expert, but there aren't many (any) trades whose opinion overrides that of a fully qualified building surveyor.

ET1976

Yes, I asked - there wasn't a survey done. As alluded to in my previous post, by their own admission they did not do even a visual inspection (by that, I mean come round and have a quick look at the exterior from the gardens), let alone a survey.

By 'independent', I meant that the person I got to do my report, the person my neighbour got to do theirs, and the contractor the council use are all different people.

By 'roofing expert' I meant a roofing contractor who specialises solely in roof work (not just a general builder).

Fire_Fox

ET1976 wrote: »

Yes, I asked - there wasn't a survey done. As alluded to in my previous post, by their own admission they did not do even a visual inspection (by that, I mean come round and have a quick look at the exterior from the gardens), let alone a survey.

By 'independent', I meant that the person I got to do my report, the person my neighbour got to do theirs, and the contractor the council use are all different people.

By 'roofing expert' I meant a roofing contractor who specialises solely in roof work (not just a general builder).

It's a tad late now but for the benefit of any readers ... for the council to have (serious) regard for your objections you need to appoint a professional who meets their stringent criteria - a building surveyor or structural engineer with the appropriate qualifications and registrations. Chances are your roofing expert didn't meet their contractors criteria so they disregarded your objections.

If you had done this you would have been in a very strong position to oppose the works, there is a good chance you could have had the work done and got away with paying the maximum £250 as your evidence would have been much stronger than theirs, given they hadn't surveyed the property. Costs have to be "reasonably incurred" my argument would have been that replacing a roof that a structural engineer or surveyor had passed was not reasonable.