Housing estate management

qweetcher

tim123456789 wrote: »

What's that got to do with enforcing the rules.

Meadfleet have to follow the statutory processes for spending the (usually) leaseholder's money.

If they don't you can take legal action to force them to do so. that, in my book, is being regulated (by the legal process).

But there isn't an official regulatory body that does this for you.

And I don't believe that a deed of cov can override your statutory right to vote for an RTM and choose you own managers. The law was specifically enacted to void lease clauses that mandated named managers. (in much the same way as earlier changes have voided clauses naming required insurers)

Our estate are actually owners, not leaseholders. We've tried to get Meadfleet to engage with us and to be accountable for how they spend their money, but they just ignore us.

I can inform you that the cost of legal action against Meadfleet is extremely expensive with no guarantees of achieving anything. The clause which ties us to Meadfleet is very cleverly written, so what you believe about the deed of covenant is wrong.

Ulfar

qweetcher wrote: »

Our estate are actually owners, not leaseholders. We've tried to get Meadfleet to engage with us and to be accountable for how they spend their money, but they just ignore us.

I can inform you that the cost of legal action against Meadfleet is extremely expensive with no guarantees of achieving anything. The clause which ties us to Meadfleet is very cleverly written, so what you believe about the deed of covenant is wrong.

Given that the right to manage is a statutory right, I find it hard to believe that this has been nullified by the deed of covenant. Given that a contract cannot override statute.

tim123456789

Ulfar wrote: »

Given that the right to manage is a statutory right, I find it hard to believe that this has been nullified by the deed of covenant. Given that a contract cannot override statute.

It does seem that qualifying "tenants" need to be leaseholders.

Bit of a loophole there

tim

qweetcher

Ulfar wrote: »

Given that the right to manage is a statutory right, I find it hard to believe that this has been nullified by the deed of covenant. Given that a contract cannot override statute.

Yes, it's hard to believe I agree. However, we've had legal advice saying the contract is legal and binding. If you have anything you can say to help us, please send me a private message.

Ulfar

Then my only other suggestion is to move.

qweetcher

Ulfar wrote: »

Then my only other suggestion is to move.

:T

If we sell we have to make sure all outstanding monies are paid to Meadfleet. Meadfleet also charge to change the name of the owners of the property. The new owners have to agree to take on the unfair contract.

It would appear that owners do not have anything they can do about Meadfleet, except pay their ridiculous fees and put up with their shoddy service.

propertyman

tim123456789 wrote: »

Meadfleet have to follow the statutory processes for spending the (usually) leaseholder's mony

If they don't you can take legal action to force them to do so. that, in my book, is being regulated (by the legal process).

But there isn't an official regulatory body that does this for you.

And I don't believe that a deed of cov can override your statutory right to vote for an RTM and choose you own managers. )

But tim in mnay cases these statutory rules do not apply where they are only looking after the amenity land, drives garages parking etc, not a dwelling house.

propertyman

qweetcher wrote: »

Yes, it's hard to believe I agree. However, we've had legal advice saying the contract is legal and binding. If you have anything you can say to help us, please send me a private message
The new owners have to agree to take on the unfair contract.

It is unlikely that the contract is unfair, simply the level of service which is arguably a breach of that contract, or as posted earlier to help you , the service under that contract is unsatisfactoy under the legislation in the 82 Act.

qweetcher

propertyman wrote: »

It is unlikely that the contract is unfair, simply the level of service which is arguably a breach of that contract, or as posted earlier to help you , the service under that contract is unsatisfactoy under the legislation in the 82 Act.

I don't know how you have come to the conclusion that the contract is unlikely to be unfair. The legal advice we've had confirms that the contract is unfair. Meadfleet can charge whatever fee they choose, they can provide shoddy service, we cannot sell our houses unless we pay any outstanding debts and they can charge to change the names of the owners if a householder sells their property.

Many householders have contacted Meadfleet as the service is unsatisfactory, in line with the legislation. Where the contract becomes unfair is that Meadfleet don't have to do a damn thing in terms of improving their service and they don't have to engage with householders. Furthermore, they actually refuse to do work on the estate that we were told, by Belway, that they would do. You might argue that they should do the work and be accountable to the people who pay their bills, but they don't and they aren't. This makes the contract unfair. In normal circumstances if you engage the services of someone and they don't fulfil their obligations you can refuse to pay.

With Meadfleet, if you don't pay they can take you to court, or they can wait until you sell your house. In the meantime, the level of service remains terrible and their charges increase. As householders we have no say over what they charge. As I said before, under the terms of the unfair contract they can charge what they like and provide a sub-standard service.

bazaar_2

Just my two bobs worth,
Engage with trading standards, then get them to contact meadfleet. Meadfleet will ignore them too. But, the thing is you need this for when they take you to court. Take photos, keep a log of when the grass is cut etc etc. Then, you have evidence to counter anything meadfleet claim. Theyve broken the promise in the deed, so you must keep a log of what was broken,
Put the account into dispute and demand they provide evidence of work carried out, insurance costs ( this is a biggy ) Cost breakdowns of contractors etc etc.
Then when they dont play ball, make a full and final payment.
Of what YOU deem to have been done, Obviously tell Trading Standards what you are doing, keep the correspondence.
Engae your neighbours, See how they are with Meadfleet, ( most will be scared but you need feedback).
OK thats it for now.