Breach of lease, need advice

AdrianC

Zod666 wrote: »

While the lease stipulates that the floors must have carpet, is it really fair that:

1) other leaseholders have breached this but because they are friends with the directors they can carry on with impunity? While I would be loath to comply, if I have to I don't see why others should be exempt

Nor do I. Which is why I explicitly said that enforcement should apply across the board.

2) the directors knew the previous owner had laminate floor and that I replaced this for wood floor and had this for 2 years before a complaint was made. Does that not mean they 'accepted' this covenant was circumvented and therefore it is unenforceble?

No. It means they chose not to enforce it until they had a complaint. The validity of that complaint, and whether to enforce or not, is a matter for the directors.

3) just because they are directors does not mean they 'do all the work', we have a maintenance company that the mgmt company has appointed to do all that.

That's right. The directors do the work of delegating the actual maintenance, and managing that contract - as well as any other aspects of managing the block - including enforcing the lease. Which is what they're now doing.

4) I'm not sure a director in the case has more 'power' than a member, we all have an equal share of the freehold

Did you read my post? I already clearly explained that you all own a share of the company, and the directors are the people who run it.

Jeez I hope you aren't a surgeon with the power of life and death mr 'black and white'.

It really is that black and white. Your lease says you need carpet. You do not have carpet. You are in breach of your lease. The directors can choose not to enforce it, as they've done up until now, but they do have the right to enforce it.

Your thread title says you need advice. You are getting advice. I'm very sorry that it's not advice that suits your argument. Talk to your mother if you want a hug.

zod666

pimento wrote: »

Could you not tell them you have complied? If there really is no noise, they'd never know otherwise.

I would but there is also a clause allowing them to inspect the flat to ensure the work is carried out so likely to be rumbled.

zod666

G_M wrote: »

Being on the ground floor means the disurbance would be less than if you were above someone. But noise travels in different ways, and could still be disturbing someone to the side/above.

Using rugs, avoiding stilettos and removing shoes could all help, but at the end of the day, 'carpet clauses' are there to protect leaseolders from disturbing each other.

It just annoys me that the inner clique can get away with anything and I have to suffer given we are all share of freehold. Why can't I demand that other leaseholders comply? It seems very one way. I think if I did complain about the friends it would be to the same directors who are there friends so nothing would come of it.

Also a better analogy would be you and 3 other cars went through multiple speed traps and only you are ticketed, would hardly hold up would it.

katejo

G_M wrote: »

Being on the ground floor means the disurbance would be less than if you were above someone. But noise travels in different ways, and could still be disturbing someone to the side/above.

Using rugs, avoiding stilettos and removing shoes could all help, but at the end of the day, 'carpet clauses' are there to protect leaseolders from disturbing each other.

My previous flat had a similar clause in the lease and I did have carpets there. It still caused problems with the bloke underneath who was hyper sensitive to any noise at all. After I sold, my buyer later replaced the living room carpet with a wooden floor. The same neighbour still lives underneath and i am amazed that she hasn't had problems with it (as far as I know as i am still in touch with her).

bristol_pilot

I'd be tempted to call their bluff, especially as this is a ground floor flat so the issue of wooden flooring causing nuissance to the flat below doesn't apply.

The Management Company can enforce this clause in the lease but I'd be surprised if they did given the potential costs involved for them and for all the other leasegolders if they attempt to do so and lose. When I was a director of a flats management company that owned the freehold we had a problem with one leaseholder refusing to pay the ground rent (for no particular reason other than being an 18 year old lad who didn't understand what leasehold meant). When we looked into enforcement, it turned out it would be a High Court action costing thousands and with the individual directors having to personally underwrite the Mgt Company's expenses.

Maybe the OP's neighbours have deeps pockets, but I'd be prepared to gamble that they won't go through with enforcement when they realise what may be involved.

cattie

G_M makes a very valid point re noise disturbance.

I too live in a ground floor flat & since moving in have had the carpets taken up in the living room, dining room & hall & have had the original parquet wood floor restored. Bedrooms & lobby have had a very good quality carpet & underlay put down.

I am quite aware that because I don't have carpets down in the main living rooms (even though I do have very large rugs) that my upstairs neighbours could possibly be affected by any noise from my flat. Sound bounces off of hard surfaces, whereas soft surfaces absorb a great element of it. Good quality carpets & underlay are a marvelous barrier against sound travelling to neighbouring properties say from a tv or radio etc. or even having a friends around for a get together. Fortunately my neighbours above tell me they are not troubled by any noise from me & I don't have any neighbours to the side who could be disturbed.

Although where I live there is no clause or covenant preventing wooden floors, probably because the properties were constructed with parquet flooring in the main areas, I am the only owner in my small block to have elected to have a wooden floor rather than carpet in main living areas. All neighbours have chosen to have carpets laid as they felt that noise transfer could be a problem.

When you buy a leasehold property you do need to ensure you fully understand the lease as most restrictions are there to protect everybody living in the building. Your mistake was probably not checking out with the directors or management company that having a wooden floor laid would be acceptable, regardless of the previous owner having laid laminate prior to having it done. Probably had you done this you would have got the OK to go ahead.

Why do you think the neighbour has complained out of malice, can you think of anything that you've done that could have upset him/her to make them want to do this?

Perhaps you could enquire to see where the noise transference is the worst, if it's in the bedrooms then can't you offer to have a decent quality carpet laid there?

Unfortunately the council would not laugh at the management company as you seem to think as the council have no control over clauses in your lease. The lease is a legal document, the contents of which you are legally bound to adhere to when buying the property. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the council.

It will be very unwise to get on the wrong side of any of the directors as they could make life very uncomfortable for you. Many directors of share of freehold properties are retired as they are the ones who have the time & patience required to take on such a responsibility.

Directors are voted for by residents if they put themselves forward for the job and yes they do have more say than ordinary residents. They are the people that residents have chosen to carry out the necessary duties & decision making required in managing the building/development. There is an awful lot of administration work involved in being a director/chairperson & an awful lot of headaches too I would imagine.

pimento

If you know which neighbours don't have carpets as required, write a letter of complaint.

Or, buy the cheapest carpets available, lay it, have them inspect and then remove it a few months weeks later.

Then turn your music up.

G_M

Zod666 wrote: »

It just annoys me that the inner clique can get away with anything and I have to suffer given we are all share of freehold. Why can't I demand that other leaseholders comply? It seems very one way. I think if I did complain about the friends it would be to the same directors who are there friends so nothing would come of it.

Also a better analogy would be you and 3 other cars went through multiple speed traps and only you are ticketed, would hardly hold up would it.

Did you read my earlier response?

Often freeholders/directors will ignore minor breaches if no one is being impacted by the breach. Once a complaint is made, however,.....

In relation to the 'friends' you refer to in 1) above, has anyone formally complained about them.....?

and yes, the analogy still holds up - I speed. I break the law. I can be ticketed. The fact that others get away with it may be annoying but does not alter the legality of the ticket, nor give me grounds to appeal against the ticket.

As Adrian says:

Your thread title says you need advice. You are getting advice. I'm very sorry that it's not advice that suits your argument.

zod666

bristol_pilot wrote: »

I'd be tempted to call their bluff, especially as this is a ground floor flat so the issue of wooden flooring causing nuissance to the flat below doesn't apply.

The Management Company can enforce this clause in the lease but I'd be surprised if they did given the potential costs involved for them and for all the other leasegolders if they attempt to do so and lose. When I was a director of a flats management company that owned the freehold we had a problem with one leaseholder refusing to pay the ground rent (for no particular reason other than being an 18 year old lad who didn't understand what leasehold meant). When we looked into enforcement, it turned out it would be a High Court action costing thousands and with the individual directors having to personally underwrite the Mgt Company's expenses.

Maybe the OP's neighbours have deeps pockets, but I'd be prepared to gamble that they won't go through with enforcement when they realise what may be involved.

thanks, I'm hoping that the offer to place rugs appeases them along with the likely financial cost of enforcing.

zod666

cattie wrote: »

G_M makes a very valid point re noise disturbance.

I too live in a ground floor flat & since moving in have had the carpets taken up in the living room, dining room & hall & have had the original parquet wood floor restored. Bedrooms & lobby have had a very good quality carpet & underlay put down.

I am quite aware that because I don't have carpets down in the main living rooms (even though I do have very large rugs) that my upstairs neighbours could possibly be affected by any noise from my flat. Sound bounces off of hard surfaces, whereas soft surfaces absorb a great element of it. Good quality carpets & underlay are a marvelous barrier against sound travelling to neighbouring properties say from a tv or radio etc. or even having a friends around for a get together. Fortunately my neighbours above tell me they are not troubled by any noise from me & I don't have any neighbours to the side who could be disturbed.

Although where I live there is no clause or covenant preventing wooden floors, probably because the properties were constructed with parquet flooring in the main areas, I am the only owner in my small block to have elected to have a wooden floor rather than carpet in main living areas. All neighbours have chosen to have carpets laid as they felt that noise transfer could be a problem.

When you buy a leasehold property you do need to ensure you fully understand the lease as most restrictions are there to protect everybody living in the building. Your mistake was probably not checking out with the directors or management company that having a wooden floor laid would be acceptable, regardless of the previous owner having laid laminate prior to having it done. Probably had you done this you would have got the OK to go ahead.

Why do you think the neighbour has complained out of malice, can you think of anything that you've done that could have upset him/her to make them want to do this?

Perhaps you could enquire to see where the noise transference is the worst, if it's in the bedrooms then can't you offer to have a decent quality carpet laid there?

Unfortunately the council would not laugh at the management company as you seem to think as the council have no control over clauses in your lease. The lease is a legal document, the contents of which you are legally bound to adhere to when buying the property. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the council.

It will be very unwise to get on the wrong side of any of the directors as they could make life very uncomfortable for you. Many directors of share of freehold properties are retired as they are the ones who have the time & patience required to take on such a responsibility.

Directors are voted for by residents if they put themselves forward for the job and yes they do have more say than ordinary residents. They are the people that residents have chosen to carry out the necessary duties & decision making required in managing the building/development. There is an awful lot of administration work involved in being a director/chairperson & an awful lot of headaches too I would imagine.

The resident who complained did this because a faulty extractor fan was carrying noise up to their flat above. as she didnt know what this was she was throwing wild accusations around that it was the floor causing this. I have fixed the extractor fan but where does this end? the reason i mentioned the council noise team is that surely if someone complains about noise there has to be 'proof' that this has occurred otherwise i could just go round accusing any neighbour in the block of making noise because they parked in my space the other day.

either the council or the mgmt team would need to hire someone to measure sound to prove that it is excessive or do we just assume everyone is honest? i doubt that would hold up in a LVT or court.