Ex-local authority flat and major works bill - HELP!

suljka

Leaseholder49 wrote: »

I did recently have the roof replaced. The procedure was that they sent me an estimate for the work, then the work was done and a couple of months after it was finished, they sent me the actual bill (which was less than the estimate ). So if you were to complete your sale before the final bill is available, you could be liable for more costs since the seller would only be able to use the estimated cost in the price negotiation.

Hope that was of some help!

Thanks for your reply... and yes that is one of my concerns and that is where legals would need to do a lot of leg work I suppose before we'd proceed with the purchase. I understand that the seller might not have final bill as the refurbishment is not all complete yet, but as you said they should have received estimate and that is what we want to see at this time. With regards to your roof work, when did you get estimate and when did you get final bill, as in relation to the actual work done?

Leaseholder49

It's possibly not correct to say they 'should have received an estimate'. From what I have heard from other people, my freeholder is unusually good, so perhaps my getting an estimate is not representative of the usual procedure. To quote mostlycheerful, "A lot of this stuff starts with an S20 Notice of Intent or whatever terminology they use and some blah about the bidding process for the main contractors and then either no indication of figures or rarely some sort of estimate."

If you check on the LEASE website (www.lease-advice.org) there is lots of information about the procedures which have to be followed when works which cost more than £250 per leaseholder are to be carried out. I can't remember if an estimate is part of the requirements.

In terms of the timeline in my case, I was issued with the inital notice of the work and the estimate in August, the work was done the following March, and I received the final bill in June (I think).

Personally I would be hugely wary of committing to the sale before the final bill is available. I would also be hugely wary of even buying an ex-LA flat, especially in a large block. Is it really that much better than renting? There will still be restrictions on what you can do internally, and you will be paying out maintenance for what is essentially someone else's property. I would be tempted to keep on saving and buy somewhere else when I could afford it.

wessexw

OP - the HA isn't Haringey by any chance? Thats the HA I had trouble with and they have a terrible rep. They wanted to charge me £15k for major works, £11k of that was to replace 3 windows. A quote I got from someone else reckoned £3k tops to do the windows. I was aware that I could challange the quote and that I also had the option to do the windows myself (after jumping through lots of hoops) but the £15k bill scared me so much with the potential of what the HA could do if they wanted to that there was no way I was going to take the risk of being involved with them so I pulled out. And that was in a Victorian flat - it wasn't a block.

suljka

Leaseholder49 wrote: »

It's possibly not correct to say they 'should have received an estimate'. From what I have heard from other people, my freeholder is unusually good, so perhaps my getting an estimate is not representative of the usual procedure. To quote mostlycheerful, "A lot of this stuff starts with an S20 Notice of Intent or whatever terminology they use and some blah about the bidding process for the main contractors and then either no indication of figures or rarely some sort of estimate."

If you check on the LEASE website (www.lease-advice.org) there is lots of information about the procedures which have to be followed when works which cost more than £250 per leaseholder are to be carried out. I can't remember if an estimate is part of the requirements.

In terms of the timeline in my case, I was issued with the inital notice of the work and the estimate in August, the work was done the following March, and I received the final bill in June (I think).

Personally I would be hugely wary of committing to the sale before the final bill is available. I would also be hugely wary of even buying an ex-LA flat, especially in a large block. Is it really that much better than renting? There will still be restrictions on what you can do internally, and you will be paying out maintenance for what is essentially someone else's property. I would be tempted to keep on saving and buy somewhere else when I could afford it.

Thanks leasholder49! Well maybe would be wrong to call it an estimate, but surely some indication of the cost involved has to be given... that is what the LEASE website is suggesting if I am not wrong. Otherwise what's there to prevent HA or local authority from ripping people blind?
We are very much aware of the final bill " issue", that's why we are so keen to see this info now before going any further. Don't want to be paying unnecessarily to find out something at the later stage what I should really know now.

As for waiting and buying somewhere else to avoid buying ex-council... well we've been knocking our head onto the wall regarding that one and this seems like the best option. The flat we're renting at present has become too small for us and renting something bigger would mean paying quite a bit more, as our rent is low at the moment. Basically it would make more sense to put the savings into a better use than what they are doing now sitting in the bank earning not much interest to get ourselves a place that would give us more space at the cost lower then renting a bigger place. The other option of course would be to go much further out in terms of location and then end up paying more money to commute to work, so potentially getting the same in term of expenses but spending a lot longer on commute. And as time is money...

suljka

wessexw wrote: »

OP - the HA isn't Haringey by any chance? Thats the HA I had trouble with and they have a terrible rep. They wanted to charge me £15k for major works, £11k of that was to replace 3 windows. A quote I got from someone else reckoned £3k tops to do the windows. I was aware that I could challange the quote and that I also had the option to do the windows myself (after jumping through lots of hoops) but the £15k bill scared me so much with the potential of what the HA could do if they wanted to that there was no way I was going to take the risk of being involved with them so I pulled out. And that was in a Victorian flat - it wasn't a block.

Not Haringey, but not much better it seems
A lot of what I'm reading on these forums seems to point to the same horror!!
While I understand your sentiment about giving up on the purchase because of what potentially could happen I wonder if on a larger scale the problem is partially self-induced, so to speak, by us, overly reluctant leaseholders :question:
What is the point in establishing governing and consumer bodies if people can't actually be bothered to use them to fight for their rights? After all it is our taxes that pay for them being there in the first place, so we should take advantage of their existence and make sure those "big hats" learn their lessons.
I'm not suggesting to follow on the USA suing culture, but surely if things are wrong than it is our duty to point them out and fight for justice

Leaseholder49

suljka wrote: »

Otherwise what's there to prevent HA or local authority from ripping people blind?

The LVT system.

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the cost could be challenged until after the work is done and billed. So having an estimate would merely give you an indication of what to expect, no guarantees.

Another thing that occurs to me is that the bill is associated with the property, not the owner, so should you take ownership before the bill is issued/paid, it would be you responsibility to pay it. Therefore in your price negotiations you would be going for a lower price, to take into consideration the fact that you will then have to foot the bill. Doesn't sound as though this was the plan (or I have misunderstood your post).

Anyway, if you're dead set on buying the place, make sure you are 100% clear on what the lease specifies in terms of what works you are liable to pay for, so you don't get any nasty surprises later on.

Leaseholder49

suljka wrote: »

... but surely if things are wrong than it is our duty to point them out and fight for justice

One of the problems of ex-LA works is that they are not necessarily doing anything "wrong". Yes, overcharging for work is wrong and can be challenged, but the actual work itself, whilst it may not be strictly necessary (at least in the leaseholder's eyes), is not prohibited either.

Councils are encouraged, if not obliged, to upgrade their housing stock (check out the Decent Homes standard), which means they often do pro-active improvements which individual home owners would not regard as required. However, their leases will often stipulate that they are required to pay. I'm not sure what precedent, if any, there is in challenging such works at an LVT, but I'd be willing to bet that anything carried out under Decent Homes would be considered acceptable.

olly300

Leaseholder49 wrote: »

I'm not sure what precedent, if any, there is in challenging such works at an LVT, but I'd be willing to bet that anything carried out under Decent Homes would be considered acceptable.

You can challenge work but you need to pay for your own surveyor, and if there are other leaseholders in the building it helps if you get them all on board.

I looked at a flat a few years ago where after some digging on the internet (it went to a tribunal) I uncovered that this is what the sellers had done to stop the entire roof being replaced when it only needed a small repair.*

From the looks of the LVT report they went through loads of hassle to do this.

To be honest suljka I would walk away from this. You will be able to find another flat that won't cause you so much hassle.

*I actually did an internet search on every single property I looked at as it's amazing what you can find.

suljka

Leaseholder49 wrote: »

The LVT system.

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the cost could be challenged until after the work is done and billed. So having an estimate would merely give you an indication of what to expect, no guarantees.

Another thing that occurs to me is that the bill is associated with the property, not the owner, so should you take ownership before the bill is issued/paid, it would be you responsibility to pay it. Therefore in your price negotiations you would be going for a lower price, to take into consideration the fact that you will then have to foot the bill. Doesn't sound as though this was the plan (or I have misunderstood your post).

Anyway, if you're dead set on buying the place, make sure you are 100% clear on what the lease specifies in terms of what works you are liable to pay for, so you don't get any nasty surprises later on.

Thanks for pointing it out , yes we're aware of the fact bill would be connected to the property, however as the property is sold on basis of that bill being paid by the seller this would be part of the contract. In practical terms it would mean that the seller would be required to pay the required amount to freeholder, into "property account", so the same place where service charge etc are payable to, therefore in effect covering the bill. And yes there are lots of worrying implications with that, but yet again that is the reason why we wanted to find out as much about it as possible now. No matter what we are not willing to proceed with negotiations before we get this info, and if we do we'd only be willing to proceed if the info is favourable... no dummies here

As for LVT - yes they are there to offer certain protection to leaseholders, the question is how many leaseholders are actually taking their complaints to them There should be more transparency in the whole process, therefore lots of problems could be avoided, without need for LVT getting involved.

Than again, that's a whole other issue... legislations that don't work and are really there to protect interests of those who don't really need protection :eek:

suljka

olly300 wrote: »

To be honest suljka I would walk away from this. You will be able to find another flat that won't cause you so much hassle.

Thanks olly300.
I certainly hope so - however would like to know about this one before we decide either way. It is not necessarily the flat itself that is so problematic, as we understand bad point about ex-council properties and most will have some bad connotations, it is just incredibly annoying to be perceived by the EA as being unreasonable for asking for this type of information in the first place. Surely no buyer in their right mind would be proceeding to the next stage without having a look at this type of information. Or is there???
When the seller tells us there was a figure they were given by the council, but even though they can remember what that figure was they no longer have the letter to support their memory, huh, I wander what else might be amiss?
I equal it to let's say, putting an offer on a flat where you can't see the flat "because seller is no longer in possession of keys for the flat" :eek:
We're standing firm and unless they show some documentation to support their claims we are walking away :cool:

*I actually did an internet search on every single property I looked at as it's amazing what you can find.

I'm becoming quite an expert in these searches as well, but so far I'm failing to find much stuff that's really useful in this particular case. Any suggestions and websites would be really appreciated