estate charge

hyposmurf

How is this usually calculated?Our RM company have sent through an invoice with the costs by property type such as flat etc(building charge).If you multiply up the number of property types by the building charges you have a total gross buildings cost
The estate charge is then a % of the gross total.Is that usual?Surely if you add up the estate charge with the building charge you end with a figure that is over 100% of the total costs of the works?

[Deleted User]

Mine is added up like this:

A, cost of things affecting just one building / rateable value of all the flats in the building * rateable value of my flat
B, cost of things affecting the whole estate / rateable value of all the flats in the estate * rateable value of my flat
C, total of A and B above.

Perhaps they have given you C, and then just told you B as a % of C for info?

G_M

Read the lease.....

hyposmurf

OK I've been through the lease. which says as follows:

The estate rent charge shall be a fair and proper proportion of the expenditure or estimated Expenditure as reasonably determined from time to time by the Management Company having regard to the number of properties constructed or to be constructed on the Estate on the basis that the whole of the Expenditure is to be recovered from the owners of such properties subject to the receipt and credit of any contributions received from owners outside the Estate towards the Expenditure.

I'm going to riase a complaint on this issue so would like some guidance. Thanks in advance.

One thing is that the management agent have split any works related to an access gate, so that so that only users of the gate have to pay towards it. Sounds fair, but this means that those that do use it are lumbered with a huge charge. The above quote from the lease states that we should all pay an equal proportion towards all works. Total number of properties on the estate divded by the total costs of the works. Also in the lease the works that are to be covered under the estate charge include the gate works. I am also being charged for this gate and at the same time being charged for gardening works across the other side of the estate.(there are no gardening on my side of the site that form part of the estate charge


This is the quote:

Estate management areas - means the areas of land facilities structures and amenities within the Estate for upkeep and maintenance of which the Management company is or will become responsible which comprise:

Any entrance gates or entrance features to the estate management areas and associated equipment and machinery.

So looking at the lease it appears they are charging incorrectly charging for the work and not as per the lease agreement. The gate works shouldn’t have been split for the gate works. How easy is it for them to change the lease and could the site be split into areas, so that works for certain areas are only chargable to those who use the service?

TrickyDicky101

I'm afraid your interpretation of the text in green and mine are different - as far as I can see it does not say:

The above quote from the lease states that we should all pay an equal proportion towards all works. Total number of properties on the estate divded by the total costs of the works

Neither does it say anything about asymmetric charging of the properties - it says a fair and proper proportion.

Is there text you haven't quoted that supports your conclusions?

hyposmurf

OK in that case that helps me as the managing agent seems to think we should all be paying an equal split of the estate charge,diving it by the total number of properties.

Perhaps they think this because they are misunderstanding the following text highlighted in purple.Though I think they are wrong and the costs should be costed proportionally regarding what services each resident uses/is provided with and not split equally.

[FONT=&quot]The estate rent charge shall be a fair and proper [/FONT][FONT=&quot]proportion of the expenditure or estimated Expenditure as reasonably determined from time to time by the Management Company having regard to the number of properties constructed or to be constructed on the Estate[/FONT][FONT=&quot] on the basis that the whole of the Expenditure is to be recovered from the owners of such properties subject to the receipt and credit of any contributions received from owners outside the Estate towards the Expenditure.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The confusing thing is they say everything should be split equally for the estate costs, but then they have sp[FONT=&quot]lit off the gate char[FONT=&quot]ge[FONT=&quot] as a [FONT=&quot]separate[/FONT] cost, but regarding the lease [FONT=&quot]this [/FONT]should be part of the estate charge[FONT=&quot]. This gate charge is then not split [FONT=&quot]equally between the res[FONT=&quot]idents[FONT=&quot], [FONT=&quot]only those that use it[FONT=&quot].Where [FONT=&quot]as gardening costs are split between all residents equally ([FONT=&quot]some gardening areas are on the opposite side of the site and resi[FONT=&quot]dents do not have access to these areas).

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]All I want is a fair charge for all,but this does not appear to be the case,[FONT=&quot] I believe they [FONT=&quot]are not splitting the costs [FONT=&quot]in a fa[FONT=&quot]ir or proper proportion as per the lease.
[FONT=&quot]One option might be to split off the areas[FONT=&quot] estate areas [FONT=&quot]and [FONT=&quot]th[FONT=&quot]ose that use that area are then c[FONT=&quot]harged[/FONT] just for the estate costs to that area.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]

davidmcn

hyposmurf wrote: »

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]([FONT=&quot]some gardening areas are on the opposite side of the site and resi[FONT=&quot]dents do not have access to these areas).

Genuinely "do not have access" (i.e. not [FONT=&quot]entitled to use) or [FONT=&quot]mer[FONT=&quot]ely "in practice they don't use them"?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] It's common for landscaped areas to be treated as a wh[FONT=&quot]ole for an es[FONT=&quot]tate, irrespective of whether you can even see them from your house.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

While there may be different "fair and proper" ways of doing it, I can't see from what you've written that their interpretation isn't one of them.

hyposmurf

davidmcn wrote: »

Genuinely "do not have access" (i.e. not [FONT=&quot]entitled to use) or [FONT=&quot]mer[FONT=&quot]ely "in practice they don't use them"?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] It's common for landscaped areas to be treated as a wh[FONT=&quot]ole for an es[FONT=&quot]tate, irrespective of whether you can even see them from your house.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]

While there may be different "fair and proper" ways of doing it, I can't see from what you've written that their interpretation isn't one of them.

The gardening areas are within walled off car park areas, behind properties, one of them has a security access gate on, the other doesn't. These are areas of the site you wouldn't normally use unless your car park was housed within one of them, if I did use them the residents would more than likely have the police round.

If that is their interpretation of it, then surely they should be applying this to all the works that fall under the estate charge for the lease?The gate charge isn't being treated this way, it has been split off from the estate charges and the lease hasn't been changed to reflect this.