I bought a pad, but I was never told about a massive impending Lease bill

492800

Ok, another question, since you lot are being great. thanks
I've been emailed some info today.

When i bought the place the preassignment info stated there would be
"External Decorations which will be carried within 5 years, costing £2879.38." this was dated 7th August
I knew and accepted this.

But
apparently 11 days earlier the Notice of Intended Works for the block was sent to the flat saying that the Water Tanks would be replaced at a price of £2716.88.

Although the preassignment pack mentions external decorations it does not mention the Water tanks (and both at different costs).

I am waiting to get clarification as to whether they are the same item or not.. But as they are very different descriptions, could I have reason to contest that the preassignemt pack did NOT make note of the Water Tank?

What do you think?

blckbrd

Not the same item. External repairs and painting is carried out cyclically. The lease may say it will be done every 6 years or some such. In reality the work has been done when councils have had the funds.

The water tanks works should either have been listed in the same way as the external reps or the 'live' s20 included in the pack. A s20 remains 'live' until a bill is issued.

The days of a council s20 with scant/nebulous info are long gone. Anyone confusing a lick of paint and reps to the structure with a water tank should have gone to Sepecsavers!

If the Council did not disclose you definitely have an argument for a reduction and if they argue - off to the LVT.

492800

That is actually quite encouraging.
Per chance, how would I go about raising this dispute and discrepancy, do I need a solicitor?
And do you have any links to information about this kind of situation so I can get extra info.
You've been great giving this advice, thank you so much.

tim123456789

start here:

http://www.lease-advice.org/

and then when you have read the appropriate bits

go here:

https://clients.lease-advice.org/Default.aspx

tell them your problem and ask them to help you with the process and someone will get back to you with some advice how to proceed.

How much help they can give with representation, I have no idea.

blckbrd

You're welcome.

blckbrd wrote: »

off to the LVT.

Was getting carried away with myself. Apologies

Right. The freeholder has no obligation to provide answers to the enquiries relating to a sale so there's no law I can point you to. Rather it's a matter of policy which, as far as I have gathered, is pretty similar across councils. The staff who work in major works/leasehold management tend to get about a bit so it's easy to compare.

Lambeth's leaseholder page relating to sale is here. You'll note the specific reference to s20s. By not providing it they haven't followed there own procedure and probably influenced your decision to buy at the price you did. In the council's I have worked for this is a no brainer reduction but i suppose Lambeth could be different. I would write to them and ask for the charge to be removed and see what the come back with.

If no reduction was forth coming, I'd be inclined to do a FOI request for details of their policy on/value of any reduction relating to omissions from pre-assignment packs over the last 3 years. Losses of this nature have to be accounted for/reported on so there will be a paper trail. If there never were any I'd drop it and go for the seller. I don't know what obligations there are at what points in a sale to disclose this info. Someone here may be able to say or you can discuss it with your solicitor.

If there has been a policy of reduction then pursue a complaint (involve you councillor - officers hate that/turn cartwheels) and ultimately go to the Housing Ombudsman if Lambeth still decline your request.

Do follow tim's link - govt funded website with great info.

john_white

But won't the council simply state they informed the current owners of the charge.

If the owners are notified of major works after they (owners) have filled in the questionaire, and, after the council have prepared theirs. Then is there any requirement for the owners to volunteer this information. Lets assume it was a few moths apart ...

492800

Good question John.
but from what i can work out, is the timescale is a bit like this:

1) Vendors fill out the Property Information form& Leashold Information form and no mention is made of the water tanks.
Paperwork is sent to my Solicitor.

2) A month later the Freeholder sends the Estimated Service charge for 2012 - 2013 which includes the “Part 2 Major works + Planned Maintenance costs” which includes info about the water tanks.

3) 7-10 days later the preassignment info was sent out but omitted the Water tanks information.

4) I receive paperwork from my solictor and then exchange and complete a couple of months later

5) a month later I get the “Statutory consultation” paperwork about the water tank

6) a month later the section 20 notification about the Water tanks arrives

Would this timeline influence who was at fault. Freeholder or vendor? or.. solicitor?


Also, thanks for info on LEASE, I'll call them next week.

Is there usually a charge for them dealing with this?

(by the way, you lot are being great, I cant thank you enough!)

blckbrd

john_white wrote: »

But won't the council simply state they informed the current owners of the charge.

If the owners are notified of major works after they (owners) have filled in the questionaire, and, after the council have prepared theirs. Then is there any requirement for the owners to volunteer this information. Lets assume it was a few moths apart ...

As I said, John, IME if the council hasn't noted the future works or provided the s20 the charge is reduced. There's always the possibility that Lambeth may be different.

Again, as I said, I had no idea of the seller's obligations around disclosure after the property information form (PIF). So I decided I'd educate myself. A brief Google led me to the Law Society PIF.

There is an obligation to disclose - page 2, para 5.

492800 wrote: »

Good question John.
but from what i can work out, is the timescale is a bit like this:

1) Vendors fill out the Property Information form& Leashold Information form and no mention is made of the water tanks.
Paperwork is sent to my Solicitor.

2) A month later the Freeholder sends the Estimated Service charge for 2012 - 2013 which includes the “Part 2 Major works + Planned Maintenance costs” which includes info about the water tanks.
Poking around on the Lambeth Living site says the 2012/13 annual estimates were due to go out to the lessees in May 12. You say you put in an offer in June 12 - how does that tally? Can you clarify the contents of "Part 2...costs". Is this from the FH to the lessees? Is this a Schedule 4 (part 2) Notice of Intention (1st notice - no costs)?

3) 7-10 days later the preassignment info was sent out but omitted the Water tanks information.

4) I receive paperwork from my solictor and then exchange and complete a couple of months later

5) a month later I get the “Statutory consultation” paperwork about the water tank
Or is this a Schedule 4 (part 2) Notice of Intention (1st notice - no costs)? Sent to the seller by the FH or to you? Your timeline makes it seem like it was addressed to you after completion.

6) a month later the section 20 notification about the Water tanks arrives
The initial Schedule 4 (part 2) Notice of Intention is a section 20 notice. The second notice either has the same title or is sometimes called a Notice of Estimates. This suggests it was sent to you directly by the FH after completion.

Would this timeline influence who was at fault. Freeholder or vendor? or.. solicitor?
If the FH omitted the info from the pack they are at fault. If they make reductions for this reason they are the path of least resistance.
The vendor may be at fault - we don't know if the did indeed advise their solicitor.
The solicitor may be at fault - we don't know if the received the info and didn't pass it on.
I get the impression from the MSE forum that claims against vendors/sols are hard work so don't go there if you don't have to...

Also, thanks for info on LEASE, I'll call them next week.

Is there usually a charge for them dealing with this?
They don't charge.

(by the way, you lot are being great, I cant thank you enough!)

Must admit your timeline just confused me! If you can apply a specific date to an activity it would be really useful. Also using the document/letter headings helps me understand what you the seller received and when.

My poking didn't bring up any long- term agreement contractors. So rather than Schedule 3 that I mentioned before it may be the 4(pt 2) I'm rattling on about. Read the sections on LEASE relating to s20 consultation for Councils for clarity.

observations_from_a_hill

I've not been near conveyancing files "in serious" for nearly two decades, but maybe Richard Webster or some other up-to-date conveyancer can tell us the present protocol.

It used to be that the purchasers requisitions on title asked whether the answers to preliminary enquiries given by the seller (which is now called Property Information Form I think) remained the same.

If this question is still effectively asked and the answer was "yes", then your sellers are "bang to rights" on the timescale. It was a matter that arose before completion, so they should have advised you.

You need to know what (if anything) is "automatically" asked of your seller between acceptance of offer & completion.

john_white

blckbrd wrote: »

As I said, John, IME if the council hasn't noted the future works or provided the s20 the charge is reduced. There's always the possibility that Lambeth may be different.

But this is the point - the council may have notified the current owners. Who threw the letter away. The new owner is blissfully unaware until the quotes drop through the letterbox.

The council would in this case simply say they informed the owner on date xx. So the correct procedure has been followed.

IME of seling a property, we had an S20 arrive and passed it on to our solicitors. Even then our buyers tried to get money out of us as the final bill was more than my guess (which we reduced the property by). I was under the impression anything that would effect the value of the property needs to be disclosed - at any point.