Bought leasehold flat and major work not disclosed

marksoton

37eeyore wrote: »

I helped my son to buy an ex local authority leasehold flat, that was being sold by the owners nephew who had power of attorney. When we engaged our solicitor I said I wasn't too worried about searches but I specifically asked her to check if there was any major works in the pipeline. The sale went through and my son moved in on 12th June this year. On 7th October he received a section 20 notice asking for £23,000 for major repairs to the roof, windows, electrics etc. When we contacted the housing association that now own and manage the flat, they told us that the work was first proposed in January. The residents were sent a letter at the beginning of April inviting them to a meeting to discuss the work. When I looked back through the paperwork for the sale, I found the management information pack that the housing association had prepared for the seller. It says that as of 20th May no major work is scheduled. On the front of the pack it says that it is prepared for the seller and is not to be relied on by anyone else. So we are now in the position that the seller says he was told by the housing association that there was no work due, the housing association say the management pack wasn’t for us so we can’t hold them accountable and my solicitor doesn’t want to know. Is there anything we can do as my son can’t afford these repairs. If he had been told before he bought it, he could have negotiated the price or just not bought it.

Challenge the bill and insist on a complete breakdown of costs.

You say there's 10 flats, that's £230,000 of work on paper. Completely unreasonable.

Sounds like the HA are trying to use your son as a cash cow.

davidmcn

PlutoinCapricorn wrote: »

Solicitors should have professional indemnity insurance for situations such as this.

They all do, but that's only relevant if they're liable - it doesn't sound to me like they are from what we've been told.

37eeyore

The previous owner isn't dead, she has gone into residential care. I asked to see the letter that was sent out to residents on 7th April, so I know that's when they were told. I think this makes the HA responsible and I'm trying to pursue that with them but obviously they aren't keen on admitting liability. I did think about putting in a complaint about the solicitor and seeing if I would have a claim against there insurance but it seems they investigate themselves and it might be a long, drawn out process. I've also challenged the work that is proposed. They want to replace all the windows in all the flats. My son's are double glazed and don't need replacing. They say he must have them done as there was no permission granted for the previous owner to change them. The lease says the freeholder is responsible for the frames and the leaseholder is responsible for the windows so I'm trying to get advice on that. They have also quoted for ten back doors even though only two flats are on the ground floor and we don't have balconies. They are replacing the roof, which is still under guarantee from when it was last done and has nothing wrong with it. There is other work as well that is over priced and unnecessary. Unfortunately most of the residents are tenants and don't have to pay, so they don't care about the cost.

moneyistooshorttomention

Re the work already done on that flat - as they are charging for doubleglazing, for instance, when your sons flat already has doubleglazing - then it sounds like someone somewhere in that HA is being a jobsworth and blindly following standard procedure, rather than using common sense. Surely there's nothing to stop them giving your son a letter giving retrospective permission for that doubleglazing that's already in situ?

I have an idea maybe housing associations get some public money don't they?? That being the case - then that would give them a degree of accountability to the public (ie the possibility of getting your MP on the case).

Worth a shot isn't it?

Nobbie1967

ognum wrote: »

I agree, find a good property lawyer and spend a small amount for them to review the paperwork and give professional advice.

This, you need an independent legal expert to give their view on who has screwed up as it seems like someone has, as you've employed a solicitor to avoid issues such as this. Once they have given an expert opinion, you can approach the relevant party (unless it's you:() for redress rather than getting bounced between the LA and solicitor blaming each other.

Winter_Phoenix

I realise that you won't want to hear this (sorry!) but I suspect that this is a case of words being used in a very specific way.

In January the work was "proposed" - so it was simply at the "we might possibly do this work, maybe, maybe not" stage.

In April the residents were invited to a meeting to "discuss" the potential work - so it was still at the "absolutely no decisions have been made yet" stage.

In May "no work had been scheduled" - so a decision had probably not yet been taken, and certainly no schedule of the proposed work had been drawn up.

Some time between May and October a definite decision was made to carry out the work, a schedule was drawn up, tenders were invited from firms, particular tenders chosen, the whole thing priced up, and so on.

In October, the residents were notified that the work would definitely be going ahead, and what the costs would be.

Of course, it's worth discussing with a competent specialist solicitor whether your son's conveyancer "should" have picked up on the slow-moving, may-or-may-not-happen process, or whether the Housing Association "should" have given residents additional information, or whether the previous owner "should" have understood the significance of the April meeting and alerted your son. But sadly for your son, it may be that no-one is to blame here, and you might spend a lot of money on lawyers and get absolutely nowhere.

37eeyore

Thanks for all the advice. I've seen my local MP who has written a letter to the HA asking them to waive the charges. The HA say the windows have to be changed because we can't prove they are up to their standard. I agree they seem to want to spend money for the sake of it. The HA is part of a large company with properties all over the country I sent an email to the CEO telling him what is going on in this area but I didn't hear back. They are a not for profit organisation so they have no shareholders to be accountable to. I think the local people are getting back hander for giving companies work but I can't do prove or do anything about that.

37eeyore

This is what the letter dated April 7th said:
Circle Housing Merton Priory is about to embark on a programme of Major Works for 2015/2016. As part of this programme, certain works have been identified to your building, the scope of which may encompass planned works, statutory/compliance and cyclical re-decoration works.
Please note that we will be unable to provide you with an indication of the cost of theses works during the meeting. Our Planned Partnering Contractor, United House Limited, is currently pricing the 2015/2016 planned programme. A summary of costs within each category of work will be made available to you when formal Section 20 Notices are duly issued at a date following this consultation meeting.
I think that proves they knew they were doing major work.

dirtycredit

Hiya,

I own an ex LA flat and my solicitor contacted the council directly to find out about any major works.

37eeyore

That's what I think my solicitor should have done. unfortunately she disagrees!