Residents association query

moneyistooshorttomention

Not sure if Gale got that that's your quirky sense of humour there G_M.:)

For clarifying on that little fact - charge £10.:)

GaleSF63

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Not sure if Gale got that that's your quirky sense of humour there G_M.:)

For clarifying on that little fact - charge £10.:)

Yes, it's ok, I did!

Beavishep

GaleSF63 wrote: »

I

There are of course many buildings consisting of just a few flats where the maintenance is dealt with and agreed (or not!) by the flat owners. They can really have problems if someone is awkward about large expenditure.

And talking of being awkward - £15? Forget it!

Its not a case of being awkward, its a case of principle, the factor is choosing to uphold certain parts of the deeds but not others, coincidentally its the parts that suit him he wants to uphold!
Although this is not the case, imagine if it was an old person that didnt have a lot of money and were struggling to get by, but because this factor and the other 10 flat owners say that they want a new carpet in a landing, then the old person has to go without heating in the winter to pay their share, just so that they are not being "awkward"

moneyistooshorttomention

Does that mean you have a copy of the deeds to hand now?

a. What parts is he upholding?

b. What parts is he not upholding?

Beavishep

Yes iv got the deeds now, its a bit long winded as the building used to be a hotel and it is listed, from what i can gather there was an original committee of flat owners that came together and set out some stipulations to be carried forward as they sold on their flats.
When i mentioned that we didnt want to pay for it he was quite quick to tell me that as per the deeds he could take us to the small claims court, it does mention in the deeds that if a majority is reached and someone refuses to pay then they can be sued for their share.
As for what hes not doing, it states that a yearly meeting has to be held with all flat owners and minutes of the meeting held and distributed afterwards, it also states that regardless of if everybody can attend, the meeting has to be held and everybody given the chance to attend, when i asked him why there is no yearly meetings he said its too dificult to get everybody together and it works fine the way its being done. He also added "thats how its been done since 1985 so throw us in jail for breaking the law"!
Im no legal expert but surely consistency is key and you cant pick and choose whichever part of the deeds suits you, surely its all or none?

G_M

Now that

a) we've established it is the Deeds that set out the the authority under which he is claiming to act, and

b) you have the Deeds to hand

it would be helpful (assuming you still need serious advice) if you quoted the Deeds (not just vague reference to them, as this is a legal matter, but precise quotes)

On the other hand, if we've helped you establish a) & b) above, and that provides you with the information you needed, then let us know and we can all go to bed (either singly or all together).

moneyistooshorttomention

:rotfl:at the thought of us all "going to bed now - either singly or together":rotfl:

I see what you mean OP by the freeholder trying to "pick and choose" what he does or doesn't abide by. I'd say he has to hold that yearly meeting - whether he likes it or no - and even if he is the only one sitting there in solitary splendour and receiving "apologies for absence" from everyone else then he would have at least provided the chance for the other stakeholders to attend and have their say. I would think the only way he could abolish that yearly meeting requirement is if everyone (or at any rate = the majority) of people had voted in favour of doing so. Otherwise - it would have to continue to be held - even he were the only attendee at it iyswim and it was unable to make binding decisions because of that.

On a different point - one reason I think Mr Freeholder is probably talking through his hat re the mention of small claims court is that, if he did so, I would think he might have to produce proof of this majority verdict in favour of the new carpet. It doesn't look as if he could do so from what you say. It would indeed be interesting to see exactly:
- details of when these meetings are to be held
- what is deemed to be the quorum necessary for the meetings decisions to stand
- etc

I'm remembering a recent incident where I was able to basically get a decision made at a meeting reversed - because that meeting had been inquorate (and was therefore not allowed to make a major decision it had made by the two people that had attended). I made sure a subsequent meeting was held that was very well-attended and the decision was reversed. So that is an important point I feel.

I think I'd probably be turning round to him myself and saying "These meetings are laid down as having to happen - so I put it to you that they still are happening and you are the only one attending them (because you have not duly notified other people as to where/when they are so that they may attend if they wish to). Therefore decisions made are done on an inquorate basis and are invalid".

LannieDuck

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

:rotfl:at the thought of us all "going to bed now - either singly or together":rotfl:

I imagine there would be quite a charge for that sort of service....

moneyistooshorttomention

...and there was me thinking that G_M might be thinking of a cosy little twosome night in;)....and thinking "I do hope he's a man...errr I presume he's a man.....":rotfl:

Its alright G_M - don't panic - I hung up my "dating shoes" some years back now:rotfl:. To the tune of "Those were the days" by Mary Hopkins...I sorta remember ....