Share of freeholder not paying for repairs. Sue him?

JohnDoe1

Thanks guys,
It's a house converted into 4 flats. So 4 leaseholders which are also the 4 shareholders of the freehold company.

The other problem is that if one person decides not to pay, it could be feasible that others may try their luck and get out of paying and therefore the company refuses to pay. In this case, the company is neglecting the responsibility of the lease and the only option would be to sue to company as a the leaseholder?

So from all the info I gather that I, as the leaseholder, can take the freeholder, to court or we, as a company, can take the offending director to court, if there is a a majority vote. What is not certain is whether I will be able to claim legal costs associated with the solicitor/court actions as otherwise the legal costs could possibly be more than the repair costs.

timmyt

JohnDoe1 wrote: »

Thanks guys,
It's a house converted into 4 flats. So 4 leaseholders which are also the 4 shareholders of the freehold company.

The other problem is that if one person decides not to pay, it could be feasible that others may try their luck and get out of paying and therefore the company refuses to pay. In this case, the company is neglecting the responsibility of the lease and the only option would be to sue to company as a the leaseholder?

So from all the info I gather that I, as the leaseholder, can take the freeholder, to court or we, as a company, can take the offending director to court, if there is a a majority vote. What is not certain is whether I will be able to claim legal costs associated with the solicitor/court actions as otherwise the legal costs could possibly be more than the repair costs.

i repeat my original post. the landlord acts under the Memo and Articles, usually by majority, as it is rare than one non-payer stops it's functioning. if tenant refuses to pay, again a majority of landlord company can ultimately forfeit lease. nasty.

you have nothing new in your facts OP, and resolution is strictly following what the lease intended.

better remind non-payer, as they could face some serious consequences.

G_M

OK. Now we know there are 4 flats and 4 shareholders.

The obvious question is have you discussed this with the other shareholders? One is refusing to pay, so I assume the other 2 and yourself agree the work needs doing and must be paid for?

So have a shareholders meeting. By a majority vote, shareholders agree for Mgmt Co. to
a) get quotes, follow procedure and get roof fixed and
b) bill the 4 leaseholders appropriately and then IF NECESSARY
c) pursue any defaulting leaseholder for their share.

bristol_pilot

G_M wrote: »

OK. Now we know there are 4 flats and 4 shareholders.

The obvious question is have you discussed this with the other shareholders? One is refusing to pay, so I assume the other 2 and yourself agree the work needs doing and must be paid for?

So have a shareholders meeting. By a majority vote, shareholders agree for Mgmt Co. to
a) get quotes, follow procedure and get roof fixed and
b) bill the 4 leaseholders appropriately and then IF NECESSARY
c) pursue any defaulting leaseholder for their share.

Good luck with that. There's a fair chance that you will get a majority vote to get the roof fixed but getting the other shareholders to fund uncapped legal expenses via their mgt company fees is another matter.

G_M

bristol_pilot wrote: »

Good luck with that. There's a fair chance that you will get a majority vote to get the roof fixed but getting the other shareholders to fund uncapped legal expenses via their mgt company fees is another matter.

You may be right, but what do you suggest the OP do?

propertyman

Richard_Webster wrote: »

This is all true, but whatever the legalities, the poor upstairs lessee still has the not inconsiderable cost of going to court!

Mmmmm if the problem exists then you have to deal with it, no one said justice was or should be free.

It is a fairly simple case to prove and can be dealt with personally, as can the ADR disrepair protocol route for repairs.

He does have the option of
a: involving the local authority to serve a repair notice,
b: applying to the LVT to determine that the ManCo is in breach himself, which makes the court application a rubber stamp exercise.
c: threaten or apply for an independant manager
d: arbitration

propertyman

JohnDoe1 wrote: »

So from all the info I gather that I, as the leaseholder, can take the freeholder, to court or we, as a company, can take the offending director to court, if there is a a majority vote. What is not certain is whether I will be able to claim legal costs associated with the solicitor/court actions as otherwise the legal costs could possibly be more than the repair costs.

Well lets not worry too far ahead.

Your first action is to make it clear to the company that water is coming through your roof and under the lease in clause x, they are required to fix it.

You require the Company to agree as a matter of urgency that they will do so, and explain all that you have learnt about the section 20 consultation process and set a timetable for the notices and getting quotes.

In the meantime they should ask a roofer ( or you can) to attend to see if any temporary repairs can be made to stop water ingress.

You must also check the lease to see how it requires payment to be made and when- few allow a one off invoice.

If you give them say 7 working days to respond then you can then revert as to what steps to take.

Both they and you have to go through this process; if there is a concern that one will never pay, and you doubt the will to sue them, then at the right time you can then, above steps taken, use the other remedies.

So get cracking