Just completed on a flat, now could be hit by a large bill for building work....

londonflare

Within all this, I'm not sure the freehold has actually transferred over yet. I know the lease has transferred to our names, but the freehold transfer had to be signed by the vendor and the other two freeholders. Does that offer a window of opportunity?

G_M

londonflare wrote: »

Within all this, I'm not sure the freehold has actually transferred over yet. I know the lease has transferred to our names, but the freehold transfer had to be signed by the vendor and the other two freeholders. Does that offer a window of opportunity?

No.
The repairing obligation will be in your lease (have you read it yet?). You are the leaseholder.

The fact that you are buying a share of the freehold as well does not affect the leasehold repairing obligation.

RAS

And never never let builder do work on the basis of an estimate - you need a quote.

londonflare

I'm sure they have got a contract with the builder, I just haven't been party to it.

In terms of the leasehold, I read it when I signed it but the solicitor hasn't forwarded on a copy yet. I will chase to get that... The report from the solicitor did outline the lease which included joint responsibility for maintenance.

The report mentioned the following in temrs of the work:

2) The Seller confirms that he will pay an agreed contribution to the
other freeholders to cover the cost of damp proofing the
basement flat. Quotes are being collected and work should
commence this month and take a week.
3) repointing of the front and back of the building, painting of the
exterior woodwork and retiling of external steps and sealing both
surface steps and underneath steps in basement flat to prevent
damp/leaks were carried out in 2009
4) in 2011 the basement flat will be damp proofed and the cost
(estimated at £15,000 to £20,000) will be covered by the current
freeholders.

G_M

londonflare wrote: »

I'm sure they have got a contract with the builder, I just haven't been party to it.

In terms of the leasehold, I read it when I signed it but the solicitor hasn't forwarded on a copy yet. I will chase to get that... The report from the solicitor did outline the lease which included joint responsibility for maintenance.

The report mentioned the following in temrs of the work:

2) The Seller confirms that he will pay an agreed contribution to the
other freeholders to cover the cost of damp proofing the
basement flat. Quotes are being collected and work should
commence this month and take a week.
3) repointing of the front and back of the building, painting of the
exterior woodwork and retiling of external steps and sealing both
surface steps and underneath steps in basement flat to prevent
damp/leaks were carried out in 2009
4) in 2011 the basement flat will be damp proofed and the cost
(estimated at £15,000 to £20,000) will be covered by the current
freeholders.

Do 2 and 4 relate to the same work? Seems strange they are not consecutive, and 2 refers to 'this month' while 4 refers to 2011???

However, if they ARE the same, then you may have a claim, since 4) states the £15-20K is only an estimate, but that (whatever the cost) "will be covered by the current freeholders" which must mean the vendors.

On the other hand, 2) refers to " an agreed contribution" which implies a fixed amount. If the final cost increases (as has happened) then the vendor has no additional liability since they have (presumably) paid their "agreed contribution".

Unless the "agreed contribution" was expressed as a % of the total cost....??
Get onto your solicitor.

londonflare

Just picking up point 4) above. My reading is that the solicitor advised us that the cost of the damp proofing (of which this additional work is surely part) would be covered by the [then] freeholders, i.e. including the vendor. Therefore I don't have liability?

londonflare

Thanks G_M. I suspect the solicitor will try to wash her hands of this as I have already paid her fees but we shall see.

G_M

londonflare wrote: »

Thanks G_M. I suspect the solicitor will try to wash her hands of this as I have already paid her fees but we shall see.

Wah her hands? No.

Rub them together in glee? Yes! A legal dispute for which she can charge a fee......

john_white

For that value the major works must have been carried out under a section 20 notice. This is basically an open invoice. What advise did your solicitor give you about this.

I find it strange a solicitor didn't advise against exchange until the true value was known.

The trouble is if the value on the section 20 agrees with what the vendors said then you have no grounds.

martindow

G_M wrote: »

No - but YOU could have had a full survey done!

I'm not sure this is so. The surveyor could not demand entry into other flats in the building and the basement flat, where this problem apparently is, could not be inspected externally.