Freehold Manager requesting consent to Sublet

ihatefreeholdmangers

I take on board that there can be other ancillary work but these people manage/own whole blocks containing 100's of flats. They know after the first "investigation" whether a notice (or consent) is required yet they continue to send generic requests for money.
Further they also charge management fees so this should cover their overhead costs. Otherwise there must surely be an element of double accounting.
For consent (which is not required under the lease but was being requested) they wanted the fees set out by CA47 below - £260 annually or £400 for a global 5 year license.
There is abuse of the process and outright dishonesty. Which applies to Freehold Managers?

propertyman

No they don't as a block does not always have the same leases. Breaches are another issue that may require checking with external agent or residents groups as acceptance is a waiver which could prove fatal to a case against the flat owner eg the flat is sublet to 43 Bavarian clog dancing students. And their pets.

Management fees are another matter they are for general shared costs and it is not fair to someone who owns their flat to bear the cost of notification of the those who rent for profit the flats. FM do very little management they deal almost exclusively with ground rents and consents, management is dealt with by other organisations.

I have seen and heard of cases where such letters are being sent on the sole basis that the flat has an alternative address, and that the one off and global consents have no basis to be charged, are in some recent case woefully short of the standard required in the lease, and often overcharged.

That's why you always check your lease and LVT decisions and do not accept these matters at first glance.

debbiera

I too received a letter from Freehold Managers, demanding money for consent to sub let. I sent them a recorded delivery letter, asking for the clause in the lease that said I had to pay for such consent.

Today I received a letter from them saying that the original letter to me had been sent out 'in error', and that I do not have to pay anything.

I'm going to complain to Trading Standards as it seems very much like they are just sending these letters out, hoping people will just pay without questioning it.

Ulfar

propertyman wrote: »

Reasonable fees are due as there is work to do in maintaining records and landlords and agents are entitled to be reimbursed for the time it takes for them to maintain records as a result of someone else's actions.

When self managing or having your own agent those fees are still due however it is perfectly acceptable to accept that those costs are taking into account as part of the over all fee and not a separate charge.

So once again there is no hard and fast rule.

I have to disagree with this strongly. There is a hard and fast rule, it is what is contained in the lease, the lease is a legally binding contract.

If a management company has various leases for different properties then it is up to them to check what is due before sending out a demand for money. They do get paid management fees out of the service contract to maintain records and as such should check them before asking for money.

Sending out a one size fits all letter demanding money is doing so under false pretences.

Of course we all know that they are out for profit and if some mug doesn't check their lease then all the better for them.

propertyman

Ulfar wrote: »

I have to disagree with this strongly. There is a hard and fast rule, it is what is contained in the lease, the lease is a legally binding contract.

.

Well you would be wrong as what you have stated as reasons for disagreeing have nothing to do with my post.:p

You have read the last line and jumped on that rather than the post.......

I posted that there is no hard and a fast rule, confirming that charges are due if the lease allows, and by implication, not if it doesn't, and that if self managing, you might choose to waive or reduce them, as in your case you instructed the agent not to charge them.

Yours is a common misapprehension, so I will explain it again.

Unless the agent is
a:party to the lease
b: an LVT manager

The fees chargeable under the lease are the landlords ( which includes a residents management company and an RTM Co)NOT the agents. If the landlord chooses not to raise them, as in your case you so chose, then the agent cannot do so unilaterally. As said earlier and her, the time and effort processing such matters are then treated as part of the overall management fee not individual charges.

Therefore, no hard and fast rule.... just because they are in the lease doesn't mean they have to be charged.

poppy10_2

debbiera wrote: »

I too received a letter from Freehold Managers, demanding money for consent to sub let. I sent them a recorded delivery letter, asking for the clause in the lease that said I had to pay for such consent.

Today I received a letter from them saying that the original letter to me had been sent out 'in error', and that I do not have to pay anything.

I'm going to complain to Trading Standards as it seems very much like they are just sending these letters out, hoping people will just pay without questioning it.

This is really dodgy behaviour, I can't believe they are getting away with it. I wonder how many people have actually paid up for these fraudulent charges.

glottalstop

debbiera wrote: »

I too received a letter from Freehold Managers, demanding money for consent to sub let. I sent them a recorded delivery letter, asking for the clause in the lease that said I had to pay for such consent.

Today I received a letter from them saying that the original letter to me had been sent out 'in error', and that I do not have to pay anything.

I'm going to complain to Trading Standards as it seems very much like they are just sending these letters out, hoping people will just pay without questioning it.

Well done debbiera, go for it. To knowingly or routinely demand payment in such an official way when the payments are not due is called "manufacturing charges" and is criminally dishonest. Your local Trading Standards team, who are I think work for the local council, should be very interested in your case.

Freehold Managers are or were an AIM-listed Plc, but they hide behind an opaque website, a London SE1 address, and are notoriously difficult to get reasonable communication, written withdrawls with signatures or apologies from. So well done so far.

FM is associated with the infamous Solitaire / Peverel group of companies, and shares directors (Bill Procter, Christopher McGill, Michael Gaston, Alan Wolfson) with their associated freehold companies and the badly behaved Estates & Management freehold agents.

Congrats on your victory and good luck striking a blow for leasehold freedom.

Carmy

I agree that Freehold Managers plc (FM) do seem difficult to contact by post (unless you are sending them money).

My experience of them is that after I had sublet my property, they wrote to me saying that I needed to get their consent and then give them notice of the subletting (and combined fees of several hundred pounds). As other posters have done, I read the lease carefully and there was nothing to say that I needed to obtain the consent of the freeholder. It said I had to give notice to the freeholder if I sublet for a term of more than 21 years, which I wasn't. Even then the notice fee stated in the lease was only £10.

I wrote to FM to tell them this and then didn't hear from them until a month or so ago when they said I had to give them notice of the subletting and pay them £108. I wrote back immediately in similar terms to my letter of 3 years previously. I have just received a further letter from FM saying they haven't heard from me.

I have just phoned FM's subletting department and, to be fair, I got through to them and, as I did in my letters to them, told them to read the lease and stop sending these letters to me and they said they would go through the lease.

It is understandable, given the vast number of freeholds which FM must own, that they just send out standard letters where there has been a change of address of the head leaseholder as this indicates that the head leaseholder is probably subletting. What is wrong is that their notice fees and administration fees for registering the notice often bear no resemblance to the relevant provisions in the lease. Most residential leases I have read refer to a notice fee of, maybe £40 or £50 if it is a relatively modern lease and as little as a couple of quid if it's a 19th or early 20th century lease.

I get concerned that it must be worth FM's time and postage to take this speculative approach to freehold property management, otherwise they wouldn't bother and just collect their ground rents and legitimate consent and notice fees. I worry that fellow leaseholders, especially those of a generation where paying up promptly and in full is the right thing to do, more so where authoritative looking letters are received, will find themselves out of pocket.

Always read your lease carefully if faced with any similar letters from FM - and perhaps have a friend read through it too. Don't be afraid to be robust (by recorded delivery) with the likes of Freehold Managers if their demands turn out to be without foundation.

Ulfar

Carmy wrote: »

I agree that Freehold Managers plc (FM) do seem difficult to contact by post (unless you are sending them money).

My experience of them is that after I had sublet my property, they wrote to me saying that I needed to get their consent and then give them notice of the subletting (and combined fees of several hundred pounds). As other posters have done, I read the lease carefully and there was nothing to say that I needed to obtain the consent of the freeholder. It said I had to give notice to the freeholder if I sublet for a term of more than 21 years, which I wasn't. Even then the notice fee stated in the lease was only £10.

I wrote to FM to tell them this and then didn't hear from them until a month or so ago when they said I had to give them notice of the subletting and pay them £108. I wrote back immediately in similar terms to my letter of 3 years previously. I have just received a further letter from FM saying they haven't heard from me.

I have just phoned FM's subletting department and, to be fair, I got through to them and, as I did in my letters to them, told them to read the lease and stop sending these letters to me and they said they would go through the lease.

It is understandable, given the vast number of freeholds which FM must own, that they just send out standard letters where there has been a change of address of the head leaseholder as this indicates that the head leaseholder is probably subletting. What is wrong is that their notice fees and administration fees for registering the notice often bear no resemblance to the relevant provisions in the lease. Most residential leases I have read refer to a notice fee of, maybe £40 or £50 if it is a relatively modern lease and as little as a couple of quid if it's a 19th or early 20th century lease.

I get concerned that it must be worth FM's time and postage to take this speculative approach to freehold property management, otherwise they wouldn't bother and just collect their ground rents and legitimate consent and notice fees. I worry that fellow leaseholders, especially those of a generation where paying up promptly and in full is the right thing to do, more so where authoritative looking letters are received, will find themselves out of pocket.

Always read your lease carefully if faced with any similar letters from FM - and perhaps have a friend read through it too. Don't be afraid to be robust (by recorded delivery) with the likes of Freehold Managers if their demands turn out to be without foundation.

I don't think it is understandable, they are relying on people not reading their lease and questioning the charges.

So they have a large number of different leases, it isn't hard to scan the leases and store them digitally. These images could be linked to a database of addresses.

Carmy

Hi Ulfar and thanks for your reply.

I understand why they send out speculative letters like this but it doesn't mean it's right. You have a good point that, especially with available technology, the onus should be on Freehold Managers to read the lease before they send out a letter demanding notice fees. If there are no such provisions in the lease, they shouldn't send them.

Until this happens, all leaseholders can do to protect themselves in these circumstances is to read their lease, take advice if they feel they need to and don't part with their money unless the lease says they have to.