Damp issues - Freeholder liable?

suestew

My boyfriend purchased his flat around 8 years ago. His is the basement flat in a four story house converted into flats. This was the freeholder’s family home at some point so he would know about issues in the property. There is a storage area in the flat which leads on to a room that is now used for an office. The storage area is under the external stairs that lead to the separate front door for the other flats in the building. This area is very damp and when it rains heavily lets in water and is therefore causing damp & moulding issues in the office. When the property was bought the office was a second toilet and had tiles on the wall, once they were removed a year ago it has really shown up the damp issues.

My boyfriend did not get a proper survey done at the time he purchased the property which I know is his mistake. Had he have done this it would have shown that the area would need some sort of tanking. We have got some quotes to see how much it would cost to rectify this problem. The report has found that the external steps need to be asphalted first and foremost as this is what is causing the problem. Obviously this is an issue for the freeholder to sort out and everyone pays their share in their maintenance charges. What I want to know is with regards to further work like tanking the storage space and most probably having to re-plaster the office walls would this also be a shared cost or would we have to pick up this bill? I just feel that as this problem stems externally and no asphalting has been carried out for years then the problem could have been avoided. He clearly would have known about these damp issues when he sold the property.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Fire_Fox

You need to read your long lease and see how the maintenance for these specific areas are attributed - sometimes it is divided between all the flats, occasionally the roof is charged to the attic flat and the basement to the basement flat.

When was your partner first aware of the leaks and when did he bring it to the attention of the freeholder or managing agent in writing? If some of the damage is down to your partner failing to report the water ingress in a timely manner he *may* be liable for a greater percentage of the repairs.

IMO what happened more than eight years ago is irrelevant unless he was actively misled/ lied to, your partner should have had a survey because basement flats are prone to damp issues. Was your partner told that the basement was fully tanked? Was this included in the planning permission or building regs? Did you need/ seek the consent of the freeholder to change the downstairs toilet to a storage cupboard?

suestew

I am pretty sure all maintenance is divided between all the flats.

No my b/f has never brought to the attention of the freeholder these issues, verbally or in writing. I do not think he was actively mislead, he didn't do the survey which was stupid. 8 years on it's obvisouly worse than when he bought the property.

I can see your points, I was just wondering if we could push for the costs to be shared. I dont think the freeholder is an unreasonable man, but I expect it's too late now to be pushing for this as something should have been said a lot sooner.

Fire_Fox

You can push for the costs to be shared if the long lease provides for that. IMO it is rather unfair to have the other leaseholders pay an equal share given your partner didn't bother to report the water ingress for eight years.

You are going to have to go via the freeholder for some of it anyway, you are not generally permitted to make structural alternations to the fabric of the building without their consent. They might just get quotes, formally consult the other leaseholders and get the work done, not argue the toss. Of course if works cost more than £250 per flat and the freeholder fails to consult properly none of the leaseholders have to pay. http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/

Somerset

The only two basement flat's that I know of, that both had damp issue's - one was tanked, the other had a membrane system. All cost's were the responsibility of the basement flat owner's. Check the lease but basement damp-proofing is usually excluded from the 'pot'. Btw, I've never heard of asphalting steps. Both the flats I mentioned had normal concrete steps and were fine after the work.

AlexMac

We lived in a leasehold semi-basement flat with shared freehold and our flat had been tanked at communal expense as the lease was clear that this cost, just like roofing or any other external decorations were to be shared according to a formula based on the varying sizes (or maybe original rateable value) of the 6 units in the block.

So it would seem likely that you have a case to argue for sharing, but it might not be so clear cut in your lease and in practice, you might want to make the deal more palatable by offering to pick up a proportion yourself- maybe holding this offer back as a negotiating tactic. It might also depend on the relationships with other leaseholders; we had a good relationship with the other 5 leaseholders in the block I mention, and did more than our share of the freehold company's self- management, so no-one complained when we asked them to share of the bill when the original tanking broke down and a few walls had to be re-done. After all- you wouldn't complain about copping a share of a roof repair, even though it would take a long time for th!e leaks to get down to you?

And re.Somerset's point above; asphalted steps and paths are a common feature of the older, mainly Victorian houses in our area and I'd assumed it was an old-fashioned way of waterproofing the ceiling of the void below, which (again locally) was often originally used as a coal hole or outside store rather than a habitable space, and so, never really designed as a dry space.

Somerset

AlexMac wrote: »

We lived in a leasehold semi-basement flat with shared freehold and our flat had been tanked at communal expense as the lease was clear that this cost, just like roofing or any other external decorations were to be shared according to a formula based on the varying sizes (or maybe original rateable value) of the 6 units in the block.

So it would seem likely that you have a case to argue for sharing, but it might not be so clear cut in your lease and in practice, you might want to make the deal more palatable by offering to pick up a proportion yourself- maybe holding this offer back as a negotiating tactic. It might also depend on the relationships with other leaseholders; we had a good relationship with the other 5 leaseholders in the block I mention, and did more than our share of the freehold company's self- management, so no-one complained when we asked them to share of the bill when the original tanking broke down and a few walls had to be re-done. After all- you wouldn't complain about copping a share of a roof repair, even though it would take a long time for th!e leaks to get down to you?

And re.Somerset's point above; asphalted steps and paths are a common feature of the older, mainly Victorian houses in our area and I'd assumed it was an old-fashioned way of waterproofing the ceiling of the void below, which (again locally) was often originally used as a coal hole or outside store rather than a habitable space, and so, never really designed as a dry space.

Obviously depends on the lease then. The lease's I mentioned specified what was the freeholder's responsibility (usual suspects) so if eg a flat were damp from faulty guttering or roof, both guttering and roof in the Sch so communal. If just damp it wasn't communal.

First example I gave was a 1800's house Central London, divided into four flat's.

Second was a Grade 2 listed house in Bath converted to four flat's.

So down to the lease though I had (wrongly) assumed they were all much the same.

suestew

OK thanks everyone, next job is looking at the lease.