Please Help!! Issue with management company

Gameplayers

Dear All,

I have got an urgent issue with the management company (consultation period ends on May 18th) and would be really grateful if anyone can give me some advice as to where I stand.

Background information: -

- I live in a flat and I bought it as a new build with 999 years leasehold directly from the developer back in year 2009. In addition, I have purchased a parking space at an extra cost.

- Building has about 180 flats in total, but only 24 parking spaces.

- Car park is located underground, in the basement of the entire building (below all flats).

- Freeholder/landlord and management company of the building have changed once back in year 2013.

- I have to pay annual management fees for both my flat and my parking space.

- Having dealt with them many times in the past, this management company only cares about money and they would always try their best to get money out of us. They would pull out all their tricks into getting us to pay up, which means they may not stick to the law (our legal rights) some time.

Situation: -

All parking space owners have recently received a letter from the (new) management company of the building, saying that the Fire Suppression System in the basement car park has not been working since year 2011, despite the efforts and money spent by the previous management company trying to repair it. As mentioned on their letter, there are now 2 options: -

Option A - We do nothing (just like between 2011 and now 2015) and accept that the system is non-functioning.

Option B - Replace the entire system as it's not possible to repair the existing one. Management company has mentioned on the letter that this is certainly the option that they recommend and that they wish to take. Costs will be somewhere between £60,000 to £180,000 plus VAT and fees, which will need to be shared between the 24 parking space owners. This works out to be about £3000 to £9000 per parking space owner that we would need to pay.

Reason why they said all 24 parking space owners would need to pay the costs to replace is because: -

- Previous system provider/company has already gone bust in year 2012, meaning no warranty (void)

- They contacted the block warranty providers (Zurich) which said they would not be paying out in this case as there is a claim excess of £326,000 which is far above even the most expensive £180,000 quote.

While the management company has mentioned the 2 options above on their letter, their real intention is to push/force everyone to pick Option B, which is to replace the system at our own expenses. They also served a Section 20 notice onto us which was the key purpose of their letter: - "Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides that a landlord must consult leaseholders who are required under the terms of their leases to contribute to costs incurred under qualifying works, where the contribution of any one leaseholder will exceed £250." Furthermore, they are saying that they are now giving us the opportunity to nominate any contractor that may be known to us to quote on this work. They even mentioned "As it is a specialist area, we will not be surprised if no one is nominated..."

Me and a few other parking space owners have discussed this matter, and would like to go for option A which is the non-paying option to leave the system as non-functioning as it has been for the past 5 years. However, in order to go for this option A, the management company is now telling us that: "I would have to take legal advice to be sure, but I think unless there was 100% acceptance that the system should not be replaced and everyone indemnified the landlord from any consequences arising from that, it would be necessary to install a new fully functioning system."

Questions: -

1. Key issue we think is that the Fire System provider firm has already gone bust back in year 2012, which means no warranty from them. In this case, who would have the legal responsibility (in terms of warranty/all costs if need replacing system)? Is it the Freeholder/Landlord?

2. Fire System was broken since 2011, despite ongoing repairs the previous management company (year 2009-2013) was unable to fix it, as such they left it as non-functioning since year 2011. For the past 5 years nobody has informed us about this issue until now, we get a letter asking for money to replace the system all of a sudden. My concern with what has happened is related to the number of years of warranty that we are supposed to get by law with new build properties. I do not know if it's 5 years or 10 years. If it's 5 years then it seems that all management companies have been hidding this serious issue from us until after the 5 years warranty period has ended, so that they nor the landlord of the building would be legally responsible? Instead they can then legally pass all replacement costs onto the leaseholders (us)? Any thoughts on this please?

3. Management company said that "Unless there was 100% acceptance (from all 24 parking space owners) that the system should not be replaced and everyone indemnified the landlord from any consequences arising from that, it would be necessary to install a new fully functioning system." --- My question is, is this a fair legal requirement or are they just making things up in order to trick us into paying £££ to replace the system? Do we definitely need 100% acceptance from all space owners because it doesn't really sound fair? For example, if 23 owners do not wish to pay, while 1 owner wish to replace the system, then we would all need to replace the system because of the 1 person?

Many thanks,
GP

Hoploz

I would say that as it is a safety issue they have to go down the route of recommending it be fixed (however that may be). If a firm were to recommend you didn't bother, then the worst happened, you could all say it was due to their negligence in recommending the system not be fixed. I would say this is the reason they are asking for 100% agreement as otherwise the one person could sue if it wasn't done.

As for how it got to be in such a poor state in the first place, that's another matter, as it should have been maintained I guess, but if there's no warranty and it hasn't been kept in good condition I think there's little that can be done now.

Gameplayers

If it was resurfacing the car park, or repairing a shutter door that gives access, I could see why only the car park users might be asked to pay; but something like fire precautions which affect the whole block might be something they all need to pay for.

I'd have thought this was a cost to be shared by all of the building's leaseholders, not just the owners of parking spaces - preventing damage to the floor that holds everything up is pretty fundamental to the health of the building.

Would you agree?

Also, forgot to mention that the management company mentioned on their letter: -

"Having made the enquiries with the various statutory bodies, we have established that there is no mandatory requirement for a fire suppression system to be installed, although it is thought to be "desirable". Owners of spaces would of course have to make enquiries of their own car insurance providers to see if their cover would be invalidated by no system being in place."

sniggings

I doubt a new build warranty would cover this anyway.

I would look at the insurance angle again, seems just lowing your quote would get them to pay.

I cannot see option B going ahead, I would think that would leave the management and you wide open to being sued by the other residents that do not have a parking space,if their properties were damaged in a fire. If the systemis a requirement.

I would really go after the insurance company, if that fails, get a decent quote and just pay up. You really do not have any other options, so forget about the last lot going bust etc,

Also check if having this system is a requirement, if not then they would find it hard to ask you to pay for something that is not a building regulation.

Gameplayers

sniggings wrote: »

I doubt a new build warranty would cover this anyway.

I would look at the insurance angle again, seems just lowing your quote would get them to pay.

I cannot see option B going ahead, I would think that would leave the management and you wide open to being sued by the other residents that do not have a parking space,if their properties were damaged in a fire. If the systemis a requirement.

I would really go after the insurance company, if that fails, get a decent quote and just pay up. You really do not have any other options, so forget about the last lot going bust etc,

Also check if having this system is a requirement, if not then they would find it hard to ask you to pay for something that is not a building regulation.

Should it be the parking space owners sharing the cost? Or all building's leaseholders should?

Also, there is no mandatory requirement for a fire suppression system to be installed. This is what the management company said on the letter with regards to the non-paying route (leaving system as non-functioning): -

"Having made the enquiries with the various statutory bodies, we have established that there is no mandatory requirement for a fire suppression system to be installed, although it is thought to be "desirable". Owners of spaces would of course have to make enquiries of their own car insurance providers to see if their cover would be invalidated by no system being in place."


Basically, the management company wants to replace the system and make us 24 owners share the costs. They said the only way to not pay is to get everyone to accept that the system is non-functioning and that everyone indemnified the landlord from any consequences arising from that... Is this how it works legally? They are proposing some expensive works, they will go ahead using our money as long as not everyone has objected against it...

I'm confused

sniggings

Gameplayers wrote: »

Should it be the parking space owners sharing the cost? Or all building's leaseholders should?

Also, there is no mandatory requirement for a fire suppression system to be installed. This is what the management company said on the letter with regards to the non-paying route (leaving system as non-functioning): -

"Having made the enquiries with the various statutory bodies, we have established that there is no mandatory requirement for a fire suppression system to be installed, although it is thought to be "desirable". Owners of spaces would of course have to make enquiries of their own car insurance providers to see if their cover would be invalidated by no system being in place."


Basically, the management company wants to replace the system and make us 24 owners share the costs. They said the only way to not pay is to get everyone to accept that the system is non-functioning and that everyone indemnified the landlord from any consequences arising from that... Is this how it works legally? They are proposing some expensive works, they will go ahead using our money as long as not everyone has objected against it...

I'm confused

If the system is not part of the property then I cannot see how they can make you pay, you are only required to pay for any reasonable costs for the upkeep of the property, it's not reasonable to have to pay for something that is not required.

An example, you have bought a parking space, that is part of your property, so it needs up keeping, same for windows,roof etc, a fire system is not.

Unless you have signed to say you agree to upkeep the fire system,then I would refuse to pay, on the grounds it's not needed and also it's not a reasonable cost.

Gameplayers

Just got the following reply from the management company now: -

"Unfortunately you are not correct as the fire suppression system is not there for the benefit of the whole building, it is there specifically for the cars that are parked there. There is an extremely thick concrete layer and it would take hours if not days for fire to break through, and if no cars were parked there, there would be no risk of fire and no need of a fire suppression system. Therefore it clearly falls under Sector 4 (car park costs) and not Sector 3 (all residential internal costs).

As I mentioned previously, in order to agree not to replace the system, it would require 100% of parking space owners to agree, and for the landlord to be indemnified (by way of a variation to the lease, which would be payable by the leaseholders concerned) for a system not being in place that was previously there.

Kind regards"

Anyone know what I and other space owners should/can do please?

Many thanks!

Marktheshark

In that case I would say if it poses no risk for hours as they say, the fire service will offer a fire suppression system free by attending within 11 minutes and putting any fire out.
As we already pay for that, we will go with it.

££sc££

I think my first steps would be to find put if it affects car insurance and to see what the other 23 flats are thinking. Because unless they all agree they don't want the system it'll be happening anyway. Also to vary all the leases so the freeholder/managing agent doesn't have to provide the system is going to cost and arm and a leg.

Gameplayers

££sc££ wrote: »

I think my first steps would be to find put if it affects car insurance and to see what the other 23 flats are thinking. Because unless they all agree they don't want the system it'll be happening anyway. Also to vary all the leases so the freeholder/managing agent doesn't have to provide the system is going to cost and arm and a leg.

Varying the lease would only cost a few hundred pounds, whereas the system they wish to implement, each of the 24 parking space owners would need to pay £3000 to £9000...

Gameplayers

Marktheshark wrote: »

In that case I would say if it poses no risk for hours as they say, the fire service will offer a fire suppression system free by attending within 11 minutes and putting any fire out.
As we already pay for that, we will go with it.

Sorry, but what do you mean exactly by : -

" the fire service will offer a fire suppression system free"