Freeholder rip off

ElvisPresleysCat

Hi

I own my own flat (mortgaged); I am the ground floor and there is a first floor tenant ; I am a leaseholder. I've received a letter from the company which acts on behalf of the freeholder. The letter states that unless I respond within 10 days of the letter, they will carry out the work and invoice me for it. The work is testing the common parts which is to comply with The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, The Control of Asbestos 2012 and The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
The letter defines 'common parts' as "entrance lobbies, stairwells, lift shafts, etc." and goes on to state that "even if you live in a house converted into two flats, one up, one down with a shared porch you are require by law to have a Risk Assessment in place."

The letter leans toward the work place but it seems weak to suggest the shared porch could be an area of work - suggestions have been bin men, meter readers and really anything else you could trump up to justify it.

This is clearly a way to extort money from me; to suggest that my "common parts" are in any way in need of any of these regulations is frankly laughable.

From what I've read, a 'competent person' could do the 'inspection', but at great expense, this managing agent will handle it.

The letter only hit my door mat today (18 September) and as I work, it was after 5pm when I received it. It was sneakily dated 12 September leaving me two days to contest it or respond.

It feels like a sort of legal coercion and is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.

I need to know what my options and rights are and would dearly appreciate any feedback you can offer.

Thanks!
Adam.

p.s. I should add that I've lived there for 6 years, 6 months and I have never had one of those inspections before. According to this site: http://www.ashworths-solicitors.co.uk/news/share-freehold/ "As from 1 October 2006 it is a legal requirement for all Landlords to undertake a fire risk assessment which must be available for inspection by fire authorities." - Yet I've seen no such assessment nor have I previously had to pay for such an assessment. Surely then the freeholder is liable?

ElvisPresleysCat

This information suggests my situation does not bode well: http://www.justanswer.com/uk-property-law/4y7ez-hello-freeholders-managing-agents-just-instructed.html



Presumably the landlord is not allowed to profit from these "assessments"?


This site suggests the freeholder must ensure the assessments are completed but could pass the cost onto the lease holders: http://www.thelawforum.co.uk/leaseholder-dispute-freeholder-managing-agent

"This is now governed by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 which came into force on 1st October 2006.
These regulations will apply to the communal part of a block of flats.
The relevant duty holder who in this case would be the freeholder is under a duty among other things to carry out a risk assessment,to give effect to fire safety arrangements and to ensure that the premises ,any fire safety equipment and emergency routes are maintained and kept in good order.
The costs of that fall on the freeholder but the individual leases might pass that burden on to the leaseholders."

Propertyfan

I own my own flat (mortgaged); I am the ground floor and there is a first floor tenant ; I am a leaseholder.

You can't own your flat and be the leaseholder. To own the flat you have to be a private freeholder or, as is the case with most flats, own a share of the freehold. This is when you have a very long lease (often 80 years or much more). If you have a share of the freehold you have to abide by the wishes of the management company so I think you may have to accept their demand for an inspection. If you don't accept their demand you should put it in writing to the company and get legal assistance but that could entail legal costs higher than the cost in letting them do the inspection!

What about the Citizens Advice Bureau?

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/getadvice.htm

Might be worth contacting them. It's free.

Citizens Advice Bureaux offer free, confidential, impartial and independent advice from over 3,500 locations. These include high streets, community centres, doctors’ surgeries, courts and prisons.

Our advice helps people resolve their problems with debt, benefits, employment, housing, discrimination, and many more issues. It is available to everyone.

Get their advice and if it's helpful to your dispute, mail/email their comments to the company running your block.

Propertyfan

Just to add:

I've received a letter from the company which acts on behalf of the freeholder.

See, you don't have any rights if the freeholder - owner of the block - wants to inspect the interior which may - if they checked the block's deed and covenants - include part of your flat.

Why not just accept their demand? You might risk them billing you for non-compliance.

The letter states that unless I respond within 10 days of the letter, they will carry out the work and invoice me for it.

I think it's best to compromise on this because if it's an inspection for health and safety and if you refuse then you're effectively putting the health and safety of the block at risk. I think you'll be digging yourself an unnecessary hole by refusing. Just accept the demand in the interests of health and safety but get a guarantee - even if it's just verbal - your acceptance will not result in you paying out any money for this inspection.

Problem solved!

Guest101

Propertyfan wrote: »

Just to add:



See, you don't have any rights if the freeholder - owner of the block - wants to inspect the interior which may - if they checked the block's deed and covenants - include part of your flat. - That's because the interior of the building is the property of the freeholder, and they are completely at liberty to inspect it. However the time frame must be reasonable. So question: where's the sinking fund in all this?? No communal areas can never include any area of privately leased property, ever.

Why not just accept their demand? You might risk them billing you for non-compliance. - They can invoice you for non-compliance, but the fact is, any court, anywhere, will throw out this claim 100%.



I think it's best to compromise on this because if it's an inspection for health and safety and if you refuse then you're effectively putting the health and safety of the block at risk. I think you'll be digging yourself an unnecessary hole by refusing. Just accept the demand in the interests of health and safety but get a guarantee - even if it's just verbal - your acceptance will not result in you paying out any money for this inspection. - The OP cannot refuse, he does not need to consent. This letter is clearly trying to pass the cost onto the leaseholder, where it is the freeholders responsibility. Why on earth you'd say 'even verbal' i dont know, that's terrible advice. GET EVERYTHING IN WRITING!

Problem solved!

My friend, i think you need to learn more and post less, sorry

ElvisPresleysCat

Propertyfan: You clearly didn't read my post. I didn't say I lived in a block, rather a ground floor flat.

Guest101: I think my first course of action is to tell them I'm just not interested. Secondly I shall tell them that 6 days to send a letter within the same town is unacceptable as the time frame is unreasonable; two days to responsd and the first of those is 9am when the office is open!

I will also have a read over my convenant as it holds the key to charges; though I suspect that it will likely leave me open to more shots across the tenancy-bow.

Thanks!
Adam.

starving_artist

Guest101 wrote: »

My friend, i think you need to learn more and post less, sorry

I think that's what he's trying to do by asking a question in this forum.

kingstreet

starving_artist wrote: »

I think that's what he's trying to do by asking a question in this forum.

Propertyfan's question was...?

Dan-Dan

Sometimes , on this forum people are guilty of treating it as a opinion message board with no qualifications to the answers they attempt to give

Thankfully there are those on here available to correct and pick them up on it

ElvisPresleysCat

Hi,

I feel the key points here are: the covenant; the free holder and the lease holder; who can do what and when and who pays for that work.

I am the lease holder. My rights are governed by the covenant I signed.
The free holder is within his rights to charge the lease holder fees for certain work.

I am already subject to a rather extortionate £400+ annual buildings insurance policy - something which I aim to contest - as well as a £50 ground rent. (I believe I'm legally allowed to request and hold a copy of my own buildings insurance even thought the free holder set up the policy.)

The company which manages the property on behalf of the free holder have tried me to pay a similar y amount under the guise of painting and decorating of soffits and fixings etc. But as far as I know, it is not a legal requirement for this work to be done and falls under the sneaky-fleecing things that free holders do.

I say "The free holder is within his rights to charge the lease holder fees for certain work", but this must be reasonable.

Considering "The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005" assessment, from what I've read, a 'competent' person could do the assessment for a reduced cost or, perhaps if you friend is a fire officer as mine is, for free. I believe the government provides guides to follow in that instance.
As for "The Control of Asbestos 2012" and "The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974", it seems a bit of a reach to include a 1ft sq area in that.

Thoughts welcome.

Adam.

ElvisPresleysCat

I have spoken with the managing company/agency and they said the 'common parts' for converted houses - i.e. flats (one up, one down) - has always been a grey area. I do not legally need to have this assessment done, but they will keep a record of my choice to not go ahead with it. No doubt that would be used in the event of a 'fire event'.

If I wished to go ahead with this assessment, I can elect someone myself. The agency only asked that I make available to them the certificates. There is some suggestion that these are increasingly requested or sought after where legalities for flat sales are concerned. I understand solicitors want this information. Then again, it was launched in 2006 and I can't understand why it's taken them 7-8 years to finally request this!

My next step is to contact the other tenant/lease holder and see what they want to do.

Joy.

Adam.