Avice on Handling Rapacious Freeholder

CrosswordFan_2

I own the lease on a small rental flat that bought 7 years ago. I've had no problems with the freeholder (Avonbraid through henchmen, E&M) until recently when they suddenly starting demanding money for my tenant to enter into "covenant" with them. They're currently asking £99.75 every time I renew the tenancy or get another tenant.

I've looked at various LVT (leashold valuation tribunal) outcomes and most of the time, these amounts have been reduced to about £40-£50 when appealed. I'd rather not have to go to an LVT, but I'm damned if I'm just going to give in to these people. Doubtless if I just give in here, there'll then be another £75 charge for preparing the covenant plus a dozen or so other charges that their lawyers cook up.

I've checked with the solicitor who did the conveyancing and it looks as if there is a clause that allows them to do this. I'm pretty angry with the solicitors for not pointing this out and am making a complaint against them to the Legal Ombudsman.

Anyone else had similar experience? After this, I am absolutely certain of one thing. I will never again buy anything leasehold - the system just exists for companies like Avonbraid to exploit the leaseholder.

propertyman

I wont argue that some exploit these clauses in terms of fees and that it will be a cold day in hell before they exercise them.

You agreed to honour terms of your lease, this deed is to make sure that your tenant by virtue of their occupation and are likely the ones to cause a breach., should therefore know and agree to keep those same terms.

So competent and earnest flat owners landlords and agents need and use that covenant, and charge a reasonable fee, so that if your tenant breaks the terms of the deed/lease, they can and have the ability to enforce them.

CrosswordFan_2

And yet the system worked perfectly well for seven years until a new freeholder happened to pay the housebuilders a huge amount of money to take over the ownership...

What would happen if I brought in a tenant, who failed to abide by the freehold regulations? The freeholder would have to take action against me as the leaseholder, and I would then have to take action against the tenant. So how exactly does the tenant having a covenant with the freeholder assist this process?

You may as well apply this to any contractor-subcontractor relationship. If someone takes out a contract with a service provider and imposes some rules on that contract, they should then logically enforce covenants to obey those some rules on any subcontractors the main contractor may employ. The simpler (but less profitable solution for the freeholder in this case) is surely to make the main contractor responsible for enforcing any rules.

The whole system of leasehold is developing into a giant rip-off designed to make billionaires richer at the expense of the rest of us. I'd post you a few links but unfortunately this site won't allow me to. But try doing searches on things like "E&M charges", "Peverel charges" and "Solitaire Truth".

propertyman

The situation didn't work as no one entered into a deed which was a breach.

The reason why a deed is often required is that, to use your ill fitting metaphor, if the terms between the employer and the main contractor, the FH and you, are different between you and the sub contractor, then the sub contractor, the tenant, is not in breach, but you are. Because of those different terms you cannot take action.

By covenanting directly to observe the terms of your lease solves that problem.

While this is close to your heart, like virtually all sectors of business there are a small minority who could be said to "rip offs".

As that entire group are understood to be involved in less than 15% of the entire sector, you may as well say that because one Airline charges for everything it can, or one Chain charges more for a 2 pack than 2 singles, the whole Airline and Supermarket is a gigantic rip off.

But let them charge the fee and using the LVT written determination and the cases you have listed challenge this under Sch 11. Good luck

http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1258/regulation/2/made
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/forms/tribunals/residential-property/lvt2-liability-admin-charge.doc

CrosswordFan_2

My previous tenant in the flat had a dispute with some of the other leaseholders because he was storing his kayak in the bicycle racks and, even though it wasn't really causing any problems, some of them took exception to it.

I only found out about this when the newsletter from the property managers said they were considering action against me. In the end, it was sorted out amicably and no action was taken. The point is that I don't remember the property managers saying "We would like to do something about this but we don't have a direct covenant with the tenant, so our hands are tied."

But anyway thanks for putting the links in, although the second one doesn't seem to work.

propertyman

CrosswordFan wrote: »

The point is that I don't remember the property managers saying "We would like to do something about this but we don't have a direct covenant with the tenant, so our hands are tied."
But anyway thanks for putting the links in, although the second one doesn't seem to work.

But when they tried to take action they would have said just that, assuming your lease deals with the use of bike sheds.

But it is a perfect example of why these deeds are useful, who on earth thinks that they can stuff a kayak in a bike shed taking over several bike spaces? A Tad selfish.

Second link fixed.