Breach of lease, need advice

zod666

pimento wrote: »

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.

yeah thats plan B!! problem is they are so nosey they will log when the carpets are delivered and taken away again...

zod666

G_M wrote: »

Did you read my earlier response?

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:

The analogy doesnt hold up... if a traffic cop with a single speed gun logged 3 cars speeding, informed all 3 they had been speeding and you also knew the other two had been logged but they decided to prosecute you, you are saying you would accept this as 'bad luck' and not some corrupt legal system?

if it were me my solicitor would be all over it and have it thrown out. The fact is other properties have this floor and they have know I have had it for 2 years, suddenly it starts making a noise? please....

G_M

Zod666 wrote: »

The analogy doesnt hold up... if a traffic cop with a single speed gun logged 3 cars speeding, informed all 3 they had been speeding and you also knew the other two had been logged but they decided to prosecute you, you are saying you would accept this as 'bad luck' and not some corrupt legal system?

if it were me my solicitor would be all over it and have it thrown out. The fact is other properties have this floor and they have know I have had it for 2 years, suddenly it starts making a noise? please....

Oh dear. I'm getting bored of this. However:
I would accept I had been speeding (assuming I had). And pay the penalty.

And since you have still not answered the question " In relation to the 'friends' you refer to in 1) above, has anyone formally complained about them.....?" I shall now assume the answer is 'no'. So returning to the analogy, the 'other two' drivers have not been informed they were speeding, and the CPS have only been told about my speeding.

Now, if you know for a fact that formal complaints about noise have been made about other leaseholders, as they have against yourself, and the Directors have chosen to enforce only against you, then yes, I would wonder why....

So. for the 3rd time:

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

Note: this is now a rhetorical question. It will be for others to respond if you answer.

zod666

G_M wrote: »

Oh dear. I'm getting bored of this. However:
I would accept I had been speeding (assuming I had). And pay the penalty.

And since you have still not answered the question " In relation to the 'friends' you refer to in 1) above, has anyone formally complained about them.....?" I shall now assume the answer is 'no'. So returning to the analogy, the 'other two' drivers have not been informed they were speeding, and the CPS have only been told about my speeding.

Now, if you know for a fact that formal complaints about noise have been made about other leaseholders, as they have against yourself, and the Directors have chosen to enforce only against you, then yes, I would wonder why....

So. for the 3rd time:

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

Note: this is now a rhetorical question. It will be for others to respond if you answer.

No, no one has formally complained about them

zod666

G_M wrote: »

Oh dear. I'm getting bored of this. However:
I would accept I had been speeding (assuming I had). And pay the penalty.

And since you have still not answered the question " In relation to the 'friends' you refer to in 1) above, has anyone formally complained about them.....?" I shall now assume the answer is 'no'. So returning to the analogy, the 'other two' drivers have not been informed they were speeding, and the CPS have only been told about my speeding.

Now, if you know for a fact that formal complaints about noise have been made about other leaseholders, as they have against yourself, and the Directors have chosen to enforce only against you, then yes, I would wonder why....

So. for the 3rd time:

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

Note: this is now a rhetorical question. It will be for others to respond if you answer.

Again I disagree, the other people who have wood flooring are friends of the director in question who is well aware they have this but turns a blind eye. That is not the same as the scenario you have above. They may not have received complaints about their floor (though if they proceed with enforcing it against me that is one plan of attack) but they are still in clear breach of the lease and the mgmt company knows it.

davidmcn

Zod666 wrote: »

The analogy doesnt hold up... if a traffic cop with a single speed gun logged 3 cars speeding, informed all 3 they had been speeding and you also knew the other two had been logged but they decided to prosecute you, you are saying you would accept this as 'bad luck' and not some corrupt legal system?

if it were me my solicitor would be all over it and have it thrown out.

Those are not grounds to have it thrown out. You can only defend the case against you - the fact that other people haven't been prosecuted / sued for a similar infringement is neither here nor there.

Herbalus

Zod666 wrote: »

Again I disagree, the other people who have wood flooring are friends of the director in question who is well aware they have this but turns a blind eye. That is not the same as the scenario you have above. They may not have received complaints about their floor (though if they proceed with enforcing it against me that is one plan of attack) but they are still in clear breach of the lease and the mgmt company knows it.

The quality of your prose suggests to me that you're an educated person, and I fully understand your viewpoint. It would seriously hack me off if I were being reminded of my legal obligations while others were not. However, that is not a legal defence. Your best bet, as far as I can see from my limited position, is to negotiate (with rugs like you're doing for example) and/or rely on their inaction to enforce.

It you are forced to put carpet down (this is the legal position after all) while others are not, then I would make darn sure that I was hoovering loudly at 7am and 11pm, have extremely shill alarms taped to the ceiling, and most definitely replace that noisy extractor fan.

I'd also make sure during these negotiations that the management committee were tackling lack of carpets in the whole apartment block, and formally complain to the committee that you are being held to the lease when others are not. That way, there would be no option for the committee but to enforce across the whole flat or not at all.

zod666

davidmcn wrote: »

Those are not grounds to have it thrown out. You can only defend the case against you - the fact that other people haven't been prosecuted / sued for a similar infringement is neither here nor there.

i'm beginning to see the lease system for the sham that it is. And I cannot see how this would stand up in court or an LVT if they were made aware of it.

zod666

Herbalus wrote: »

The quality of your prose suggests to me that you're an educated person, and I fully understand your viewpoint. It would seriously hack me off if I were being reminded of my legal obligations while others were not. However, that is not a legal defence. Your best bet, as far as I can see from my limited position, is to negotiate (with rugs like you're doing for example) and/or rely on their inaction to enforce.

It you are forced to put carpet down (this is the legal position after all) while others are not, then I would make darn sure that I was hoovering loudly at 7am and 11pm, have extremely shill alarms taped to the ceiling, and most definitely replace that noisy extractor fan.

I'd also make sure during these negotiations that the management committee were tackling lack of carpets in the whole apartment block, and formally complain to the committee that you are being held to the lease when others are not. That way, there would be no option for the committee but to enforce across the whole flat or not at all.

thanks. while I agree about the hoovering it would probably then give them a real excuse to complain about the noise. Believe me if they persist and make me put down carpets I'm going to be the mgmt company member from hell demanding every expense statement and questioning every decision they make....two can play at that game.

vivatifosi

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.

Not an expert on covenants, but have taken legal advice on each of our covenants to see about enforceability (freehold estate rather than leasehold flats) as a director of the RMC. In the event of the situation above, rather than taking the issue to court, we would refuse to issue the certificate to complete a future sale until the householder paid up. In fact, we had an owner default and their property was reposessed, it was a condition of the sale that the bank paid the outstanding arears before it went through (they did).

This is the type of action that RMCs can take without going to the cost of the High Court to enforce. As I said, my estate is freehold (houses), so not a direct comparison, maybe someone else can confirm whether this would be the case or not... but is it possible that when you (OP) put your flat up for sale, that the RMC could contact the selling agents and inform them that it does not meet the criteria of the lease and requesting that this information is passed to any future buyers. G_M and other experts, what do you think? We do something similar here, but it relates to the advertisement of houses with allocated parking when there isn't any, and it belongs to the management company. That may be a more black and white case, however.