Reclaiming money from freeholder

Jemima5317

Hi all,

I'll try and be concise, but as you can see, I'm a relative newcomer, so I can't post links etc, so if you need more information, please be a little bit patient with my typing skills!

A good friend of mine recently moved out of her leasehold maisonette. She owned the top maisonette of two, and the two had shared access via a front pathway, and also at the back, if you imagine a sixty foot garden, it was split in half with the half closest to the maisonettes belonging to downstairs, the furthest half owned by her, but a shared path running along so that she could reach her garden, and the neighbour could get out the back.

She lived there from 1997 to October last year. The lease specifies that the lessee (her) and the lessee of the downstairs maisonette had to contribute equally to the maintenance etc of the shared pathways. She had the pathways re-done (just once during the nearly 13 years she lived there), and, because it's the sort of mistake we can all make, she just got on and did it. I know the path was a bit of a mess (but I am her friend!) and much improved by what she had done. However, the problem she now has is whether she can reclaim any of the costs of this from the freeholder (downstairs is rented rather than owner occupied). She wouldn't normally bother, but got quite stiffed by the freeholder when she moved out which I won't go into now. She has already written and they've effectively said "you didn't ask us, you didn't allow us to get our own quotes, forget it", but does anyone have any experience of how likely she is to get any joy if she continues to pursue? The sum she's asking for is just under 600 pounds, which I would hardly have thought is that onerous, but for her, it's the principle!

Should add that as a by no means expert, I've looked at her lease, which is very clear that the responsibility for the paths is shared as are costs of said work, but don't say whose responsibility it is to get them checked, or specify that you need to consult with the other party... I would guess her chances aren't that great, but would value your advice if anyone knows much on this sort of thing?

J

Fire_Fox

Unfortunately freeholders do not take financial responsibility for repairs and maintenance, they only organise them and the costs are borne by the leaseholders. Are you meaning could your friend claim the money back from the other leaseholder and not the freeholder? Any individual cost over £250 per unit is classed as major works, and there is a formal consultation process that needs to be gone through or there can be an application to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to dispense with the consultation process, where works are urgent or agreement cannot be reached.

This website explains the legal position:
http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=14

Jemima5317

Thanks v much - will check out the link. Sorry for not being clear (not an expert, obviously!). She is claiming from management agents, as they act on behalf of freeholder, but freeholder "owns" downstairs, with a sitting tenant in it, rather than owner occupier of leasehold - gaaa, does that make any more sense?! So both freehold of both properties owned by same freeholder, but one with sitting tenant in so leaseholder effectively the freeholder.

J

Fire_Fox

Jemima5317 wrote: »

Thanks v much - will check out the link. Sorry for not being clear (not an expert, obviously!). She is claiming from management agents, as they act on behalf of freeholder, but freeholder "owns" downstairs, with a sitting tenant in it, rather than owner occupier of leasehold - gaaa, does that make any more sense?! So both freehold of both properties owned by same freeholder, but one with sitting tenant in so leaseholder effectively the freeholder.

J

The tenant is a red herring and does have any impact on who is the leaseholder and who is the freeholder. Are you saying the same individual holds both the downstairs lease and the title for the freehold for the full house? Even if that is the case, imagine that person as wearing two different hats. With his freeholder hat on the neighbour would be responsible for organising repairs and maintenance, with his leaseholder hat on the neighbour would be responsible for a half share of the costs providing the correct procedure was followed. Management companies are merely intermediaries, they don't foot the bill for anything so your friend's claim is (a) against the wrong individual and (b) has no legal basis. Sorry!