Service Charge Dispute with neighbours

LOLAF

We bought our flat recently. It is a ground floor flat with separate entrance. As part of the purchase process the residents company provided us/our solicitors a confirmation that our flat should not bear the cost of certain items of the service charge - such as entry phone and internal common areas - as our flat has no benefit of these ( having a completely separate entrance).
The flat owner that managed the residents company recently sold his flat, now all the other neighbours demand us to pay for entry phone and other services of no benefit to our flat and threaten with legal action. They claim the confirmation we received is wrong.
To be clear - the head lease does mention two types of SC and specifically states that one type should not be charged to our flat as we do not benefit from entrance hall, staircase etc. The problem is that the list does not include all imaginable items, such as an entry phone....
Does anyone know if we can legally rely on the email sent to our solicitors by the secretary of the residents company specifically mentioning items of the SC for which our flat is not liable for?

Thanks

Pandilex

I imagine it would depend on the wording of the e-mail, the wording of the contract you have in place for payment of the service charge, and the authority of the people involved.

LOLAF

The email was received as part of the standard "management company enquiries". The other owners are directors of the residents company - and so are we now.
I was wondering if there is a legal concept that a new owner can rely on the representation of the residents company so that the company cannot now change its mind and demand payments it previously confirmed it is not entitled to.

jk0

Sounds like one for the FTT to adjudicate on.

LOLAF

jk0 wrote: »

Sounds like one for the FTT to adjudicate on.

What is FTT?

princeofpounds

It is very normal for leaseholders to have to, under the terms of their lease, contribute to a central fund for items that they may not gain direct benefit from (e.g part-pay for a lift despite being ground floor).

The other situation, which you believe your property to be in, is much rarer.

Have you actually read your lease? This should specify your obligations.

What happens if the freehold company have given you the wrong information is another matter. I am afraid I don't know the correct process in this situation, although your lawyer probably does. You might be in a situation where you have to pay, but then claim damages back from the freehold company perhaps.

I would also encourage you to contact LEASE (lease-advice.org) which is a govt-funded advice service on the subject.

Please post back with any discoveries. Will research further.

Edit: I should add that it is understandable why both sides are angry, IF the lease is a more normal proportionate sharing of all costs. You have basically been deceived over the nature of the lease (although you and/or your lawyer should have spotted the discrepancy). Your peer leaseholders have been saddled with someone who won't pay the correct bill.

So the best thing is not for both sides to start attacking each other, you have likely both been done an injustice. Both sides should be calm and find out now what the legal situation is.

propertyman

As pop indicates it depends on what your lease says. Your claim might be that the email which " the residents company provided us/our solicitors a confirmation" is estoppel, a legal terms which means that they are stopped from doing something, ie charging for these items.

jk0

LOLAF wrote: »

What is FTT?

FTT=First Tier Tribunal. (Formerly LVT.)