greedy management company

propertyman

Fraise wrote: »

It's very easy to read a lease for me, Propertyman. I don't have difficulties reading or writing.Yo sound very confused, you seem to be mistaking my points of running a small house with running an estate. I'm also referring to a house divided into flats where all the shareholders are freeholders to - and NO management agency can overrule the FREEHOLDER who employs them!!:rotfl::rotfl:

Well I've read your post and you have only compounded your conflated and poor understanding of the psoioton,. as well as ignoring some very important issued.

In my not inconsiderable experience its often harder to get a group of 4 owners to agree, especially when one decides, often for bizzare reasons, to put their foot down, than organising a group in a mansion block or "estate".

The phrase "it will be in the lease" was completely hysterical and while optimism is always good to see, very often it is not in the lease. The answer to my question on timbers and decorations will not be in the lease and yours is wrong,as well as not being an answer.

That you put quotes before consultation is clear that you don't understand that either.


But hey I tried to get you thinking and you are confident in your assumption and will I hope that you wil lnever face those problems, or criminal porsection for the issues you have ignored,
we make a lot of money with people walking in saying " erm we've been told we screwed this all up" or 2 what does it mean that the Queen owns our freehold"

Its rarely too late, but it costs a lot of money and sleepness nights until we turn them round.

Fraise

propertyman wrote: »

No its not...:rotfl:

I am not being pedantic I am being correct about this as the Sof notion is a dangerous one.

The biggest issue is that they believe that "it’s not leasehold"

-A typical example is the buyer who thinks the lease is just a technicality and comes unstuck when they need it extending the company or other owners ask for a market premium, which they can.

-Moreover it often believed that the restrictions and rights that come with leases can then be ignored, which they can't.

-They then discover that the mortgage lender will not lend on a lease of say 76 years at 90% and that the price they are paying is based on flat with a lease of at least 95 years and up

-ground rent and service charge and their importance is overlooked as they think “its not leasehold its SoF

- worst of all they find this out after they have bought it

But if buyers dont clearly understand what they are buying they fail to understand the very considerable issues that come with flat ownership BEFORE let alone after, they buy


The link is no proof it’s an entirely made up marketing concept. As I have explained several times its a simple concept as explained in the only forms of property ownership that exist (as above)

You are buying two separate interests.

1 You own the flat under a lease

2 The freehold is (jointly) owned either by a group of people as a single legal entity or you have a share in or are a member of a company that owns the freehold

The EA description is simple

Tenure

Flat: 95 years remaining
Freehold: the freehold is owned by a company controlled by the flat owners, membership of which will be transferred to you
GR X
SC Y

My leasehold which came with my SOF was 999 years, so I had no concerns about extending it. Plus, as I was one of the freeholders I would hardly charge myself to extend my own lease had I needed to. Nor would I charge myself a service charge:):)

We are all aware that SOF also has a lease, but a simple 999 year lease with very basic rlings such as redecorating every 7 tears is no hardship - it is good. And as a co-freeholder one can propose to add things to their own lease, which is great.

Freeholders do not pay ground rent either.....to pay themselves!:rotfl:

You should realise that if you own a SHARE OF FREEHOLD then you are NOT just a leaseholder - you are a joint freeholder too - even if your share is under the umbrella of a company, which paart belongs to you!

You sound very confused in my opinion.

Fraise

propertyman wrote: »

Well I've read your post and you have only compounded your conflated and poor understanding of the psoioton,. as well as ignoring some very important issued.

In my not inconsiderable experience its often harder to get a group of 4 owners to agree, especially when one decides, often for bizzare reasons, to put their foot down, than organising a group in a mansion block or "estate".

The phrase "it will be in the lease" was completely hysterical and while optimism is always good to see, very often it is not in the lease. The answer to my question on timbers and decorations will not be in the lease and yours is wrong,as well as not being an answer.

That you put quotes before consultation is clear that you don't understand that either.


But hey I tried to get you thinking and you are confident in your assumption and will I hope that you wil lnever face those problems, or criminal porsection for the issues you have ignored,
we make a lot of money with people walking in saying " erm we've been told we screwed this all up" or 2 what does it mean that the Queen owns our freehold"

Its rarely too late, but it costs a lot of money and sleepness nights until we turn them round.

I listen to my conveyancing solicitor, and whilst I'm sure yo mean well, you are incorrect about many things. As for your suggestion that just one freeholder of a company consisting of 4 freeholders could cause problems by disagreeing with a proposal - you are sorely wrong. In the Company Articles it states that a majority vote system would govern such events.

Let's agree to disagree, eh? This is going round in circles...

dell12

There's 6 flats in our block in total (each with a share of freehold) and I manage the block myself. There's no lift and the only technical equipment is communal lighting/entryphone. It's not massively difficult. Solicitors are generally pretty helpful when it comes to buying and selling. I do have indemnity insurance (about £120 pa) however so if anyone tries to sue me I'm covered.

Each flat pays around £80 pcm + insurance once a year (about £400 depending on the size of the flat). There's a large communal area which occasionally needs work but generally not too much but some touching up now and again.

I don't take any money for managing, and we're gradually building up a sinking fund so any large work that might need doing (about £10k). £80 seems more than enough in my opinion for low density blocks without much technical equipment to go wrong. I have to say I'd have to think carefully about buying into a block where there's a management company appointed with little recourse.

Fraise

dell12 wrote: »

There's 6 flats in our block in total (each with a share of freehold) and I manage the block myself. There's no lift and the only technical equipment is communal lighting/entryphone. It's not massively difficult. Solicitors are generally pretty helpful when it comes to buying and selling. I do have indemnity insurance (about £120 pa) however so if anyone tries to sue me I'm covered.

Each flat pays around £80 pcm + insurance once a year (about £400 depending on the size of the flat). There's a large communal area which occasionally needs work but generally not too much but some touching up now and again.

I don't take any money for managing, and we're gradually building up a sinking fund so any large work that might need doing (about £10k). £80 seems more than enough in my opinion for low density blocks without much technical equipment to go wrong. I have to say I'd have to think carefully about buying into a block where there's a management company appointed with little recourse.

Self-managing is the way to go for a block or house with no more than 6 flats, as you have proved. And it shows there's little that needs doing by the amount you have in the sink fund. Out of interest how old is your roof? I have been told by a surveyor that for a 'small' house or block of 6 flats or less, the major repair would be the roof, and as they can last for between 60 and 100 years then that's not usually a problem.

Also, if you have few (or even none) commnunal areas, then except for the outside decorating every so many years, plus gutters and drains etc, it doesn't cost that much to maintain. Especially when you're insured for accidental damage, like a fallen roof slate in a gale etc...

Actually, £80 a month to cover all works that may need carrying out is very good. Some people pay that on the Lotto each month! It gives you peace of mind too, and in some ways it's better than having sole freehold of a house of which you're reliable for every repair.

propertyman

Fraise it is you that is confused you have fully embraced the idea of SoF and as they do not exist, you have fallen into the traps that will, though I hope they never do, will bite you.

All the "quick list" of issues I mentioned above apply equally to 2 flats or 2,000.


Your biggest mistake is thinking that the comanies articles overide the individual rights of a leasholder, they don't, even if every flat owner is joint owner or a shareholder in the company
.
Those are the contracts(999 years in your case) between the freeholder and the leaseholder and are governed by the appicable laws. If you look at the (never ending) cases on Morshead Mansions you will see how complicated this is eg where the company sought to pay for things as a company they were ruled as being a service charge and therefore subject to that control and rights.

I can list you all the Acts as above and precedent but you are not going to read them and are fooish not to do so, you will learn the hard way.

As a final word of caution consider this case- 12 flats owned by a company of 12 flat owners. The company votes not to paint but replace the windows with PVCu.
One person apologises for abscence on the night of the vote and they go ahead, 11 in favour.

New windows done, the bill isnt paid. Off to to Croydon Court Court they go and
1- monies raised are a service charge and should have been consulted on under "section 20" limited to £50 contribution
2- as the lease only called for repairs and painting not replacement, only to pay what the cost of the former would have been.

Thats right new windows at the cost to the 11 other people and £50 for him.

You have been warned.

dell12

Fraise wrote: »

Self-managing is the way to go for a block or house with no more than 6 flats, as you have proved. And it shows there's little that needs doing by the amount you have in the sink fund. Out of interest how old is your roof? I have been told by a surveyor that for a 'small' house or block of 6 flats or less, the major repair would be the roof, and as they can last for between 60 and 100 years then that's not usually a problem.

Also, if you have few (or even none) commnunal areas, then except for the outside decorating every so many years, plus gutters and drains etc, it doesn't cost that much to maintain. Especially when you're insured for accidental damage, like a fallen roof slate in a gale etc...

Actually, £80 a month to cover all works that may need carrying out is very good. Some people pay that on the Lotto each month! It gives you peace of mind too, and in some ways it's better than having sole freehold of a house of which you're reliable for every repair.

I'd agree, the roof is probably the most expensive thing. It was redone 4 years ago at a cost of about £20,000 and I had to ask for about £600 from each flat.

Ease of running comes down to whose living in the block and if they trust you. 6 decent people who you can trust and it's a doddle. 6 difficult people and you can spend days and days chasing people for money and forms. I generally make sure any letters/invoices are standardised so they comply with legislation and would stand up in court - but I've never had to take anything that far.

Generally we meet once a year (those who want to) and discuss what we want to do (majority decision) over the next year and how much we'll need to do it. Then it's down to me to get it done.

I wouldn't have touched it if the block was 60 flats. The only reason I took it on was that a management company was doing a terrible job for quite alot more money.

moromir

Fraise wrote:

then it will all be in the lease regarding decorating. People do read them you know.

Oh, bless you :A

I used to get stuck reading property leases in my old job.

It would be fair to say I regularly needed both hands to count the mistakes and oversights in a single lease.

I particuarly remember a case where a leaseholder had stored items in a loftspace which subsequently made an appearance through the ceiling of their living room.

The lease specified the roof trusses and tiles belonged to the management company/freeholder, the ceiling of the flat below belonged to the leaseholder.

Which is all great except whoever wrote the lease forgot to mention who owned the rafters or the loft airspace. Usually theres a get out clause to the effect that 'anything not listed as the demised premises (ie belonging to the leaseholder) belongs to the freeholder, no such luck here.

That particular mangement company lost the best part of ten grand defending lawsuits from the leaseholder and having a Solcitior draw up the necessary documents to repair the lease.

TrickyDicky101

propertyman wrote: »

The biggest issue is that they believe that "it’s not leasehold"

-A typical example is the buyer who thinks the lease is just a technicality and comes unstuck when they need it extending the company or other owners ask for a market premium, which they can.

This really is a key point, which in my admittedly inexperienced opinion is very rarely appreciated (as Fraise so ably demonstrated in post #33).

propertyman

dell12 wrote: »

.

Ease of running comes down to whose living in the block and if they trust you. 6 decent people who you can trust and it's a doddle. 6 difficult people and you can spend days and days chasing people for money and forms. I generally make sure any letters/invoices are standardised so they comply with legislation and would stand up in court - but I've never had to take anything that far.
.

Thats the point, it all goes swimmingly until either
1 someone is difficult
2 someone's circumstances change and can't pay

Fraise's approach is an all too common one “lets use common sense and general, artless, one line advice from a conveyancing solicitor, and what an estate agent told me” and not taking the time to learn . Its not too late...

By getting the perspective right and accepting that the law applies to all buildings, you are not tripped up by “what everyone agreed on” and the delusion of SoF.

One last case from 2011…

Residents Company owns freehold and decide to withdraw the gym as its too expensive to run. All save one agree, and gym shut down.

The one goes to court and even after appeal it is ruled “ gym is a service that must be provided under the lease, reinstate it”.

Company ( the residents) has to pay all costs. Ouch:eek: