Trapped in my flat by huge service charges...!!

propertyman

tom0407 wrote: »

Have you looked into taking over your Right to Manage? If you can get a few of the other leaseholders on board might this be an option? We used a company called Urban Owners who were very helpful.

Good luck though, I totally sympathise with you, it sounds like a horrible situation.

The block is HA and therefore normally an exempt landlord for RTM purposes.

propertyman

In these cases they will normally seek repayment over a period of time or if you genuinely cannot afford these increased charges, will put a charge on the flat so that it is deducted from any future sale price, as long as you built sufficient equity to pay off any monies secured on it.

2sides2everystory

I manage over 1,000 leasehold properites and yes, consider them my leaseholders as I deal with all aspects of their lease

How on earth did you manage to arrive at a situation where you were billing individual leaseholders £40K apiece? Sounds pretty outrageous that any management company should mess up the planned maintenance and cashflows long term to such an extent that you ended up having to hit individual householders with obscene bills like that, no-doubt ruining their day if not their lives.

What happened - was it a problem you inherited from the previous managing agent or just an Act of God?

Donna77

Whilst I know nothing about this I have a couple of thoughts,

My brother was in a simular situation with his Landlord where they decided they needed 15k each on a block of flats. My brother and other people in his block challenged this, first off it was the management agency that was leving the charges not the landlord so you need to check whether the HA are the ones doing the work or if infact they have hired a management agency who are just after extra work/money.

They also had an independant evaluation of the block done to confirm the work that was said to be done actually needed doing and presented this to the landlord. This is still an ongoing battle as far as i am aware but it's certainly worth thinking about...

If push comes to shove and it's an independant management agency you do have the right to vote out the management agency and insist on hiring a new more reasonable one at cost but i would believe you could only do this if the housing association weren't the management agent themselves.

Again i have little knowledge of this but these are the avenues i would be persuing...

propertyman

Donna77 wrote: »

If push comes to shove and it's an independant management agency you do have the right to vote out the management agency and insist on hiring a new more reasonable one at cost but i would believe you could only do this if the housing association weren't the management agent themselves.

Again i have little knowledge of this but these are the avenues i would be persuing...

By way of clarification this might have been in the case Donna 77 has quoted, however that is only the case in certain circumstances.

Here the landlord is not subject to the "votes" of the residents as to the use of an agent, or more than likely here, an internal department.

I would not like members to read the thread and think they have rights that they may not.

Lease_advice.org provides extensive advise and free advisers.

propertyman

2sides2everystory wrote: »

How on earth did you manage to arrive at a situation where you were billing individual leaseholders £40K apiece? Sounds pretty outrageous that any management company should mess up the planned maintenance and cashflows long term to such an extent that you ended up having to hit individual householders with obscene bills like that, no-doubt ruining their day if not their lives.

By way of explanation this is a housing association landlord who are partly funded by service charge contributions but the majority of their funding comes from central government and commercial loans.

It is common to find major works being postponed year after year, and where they have inhertied council stock through New labours stock transfer,, they are playing catch up.

And of course in private sector blocks there are often militant leaseholders hell bent in preventing any works being carried out or postponing them so they can sell up, or take the hit in a lower sale price.

2sides2everystory

"Property management" people talk about "major works" like residential buildings are all unwaterproofed cotton tents or Ronan Point design nightmares or high alumina-cement ticking bombs. They are not. The only common factor is that they are full of unsuspecting suckers who too easily fall prey to massive greed of a certain breed of parasite.

Property management as a business is totally (and I mean TOTALLY) unregulated. It is full of hangers on and boy do they shamelessly hang a lot on.

And what's this talk of militant leaseholders? I haven't heard that before. What I have too frequently heard is shameless property managers denigrating "problem" leaseholders who voluntarily put a lot of their energy into stopping greedy parasites in their tracks using the law and using their influence amongst their neighbours to get things changed.

This then usually becomes the test for the parasites who ultimately will drop off if they don't get their way, and will simply move on to concentrate on easier targets.

It is an area of home-ownership in the UK that is crying out to be cleaned up but there are perhaps too many vested interests in keeping it going just as it is thanks.

propertyman

Well there's an another example of ignoring facts when a bitterly held opinion will do.

With many millions to leaseholders more than happy with a professional service being provided by many practitioners who are well trained and qualified, and regulated by the IRPM ARMA and the RICS.

All of whom have campaigned for government regulation but met with deaf ears.

Are there are pariahs yes and they range from the corner estate agent looking to do a bit of property management as sales are down, to some very very large players, who frankly are an embarrassment to most of us..

There as some individual bad apples that why I support individual licenses, as well for all trades and professions.

I was putting forward the fact that there are different sides tot eh story, as your title showed and I am surprised that you reject any other than yours based on extremely limited experience.

I can tell you of the militant leaseholder who went to enormous lengths- purchasing shares so to go to the AGM of the parent company a bank- in order to object over works which the majority of residents were more than happy to pay for and had worked with me in numerous meetings , joining me interviewing contractors, so they understood what and why works were being done.

In some cases I have even waived or capped the fees for specifcation and supervision where residents have honestly struggled.

Or the residents self managed block who emptied to coffers to paint their block alone and then dropped the service charge to get a quick sales leaving their former neighbours out of pocket and in a poor state.

There are bad apples in every batch I am afraid.

2sides2everystory

propertyman wrote: »

...extremely limited experience.

You think.

In some cases I have even waived or capped the fees for specifcation and supervision where residents have honestly struggled.

Oh and you play God too, do you? And your 'fees' are otherwise typically what as a percentage of these extraordinary amounts you bill each leaseholder? Annual Management fees at 20% not 10% eh? 15 - 50% Commissions on any disgracefully inflated buildings insurance premiums you can get your hands on and share with associate 'providers'? 2-5% of major works prices as fees for what? Sending out notices? Sitting on millions in unspent service charges and having a wonderful relationship with your bank and your preferred bulldog lawyers? Are you a chartered surveyor? Do you practice as one?

I have zero confidence in IRPM ARMA or RICS as regulators because they are not regulators at all in any worthwhile sense. They organisations that delight in offering letters to emblazon on the letterheads of an unbridled and motley crew willing to pay corporate subscriptions or in the two prior cases play with a few simple exams, but they are totally worthless to a leaseholder trying to sort wheat from chaff. They are all self-interest groups and uphold no public good I have yet identified, and no standard processes so money can get "lost".

As a leaseholder I have met so many people with those same letters after their names over the years that you would think that I would have found at least one by now that I could trust and recommend, wouldn't you? I haven't - I doubt such an individual would survive unless he or she was ploughing their own furrow in business for their own account against the grain of greed. In that case they would not be touting those letters except perhaps the last as a reflection only of days gone by.

So, you tell your side of the story and I will tell the other side. Let MSE'ers decide which they think is closer to the truth.

Sa-ra-ra-ra

Actually, the RICS code of conduct does recommend that managing agents' fees are a set figure, not a percentage of the service charge budget.