Ex housing association property liable for service charges?

lost_in_translation_2

loubel wrote: »

This is what you need to buy a copy of, although your solicitor should have sent you a copy when you purchased with a report explaining the important bits. Is it possible you still have this somewhere in your paperwork?

However it is likely to just say that you are responsible for paying a fair contribution to the shared estate costs. You will need to discuss with the HA if you believe there are discrepancies in the accounts they are sending you.

Thank you. Nope, we definitely dont have anything, I've been through every piece of paper with a fine tooth comb. The coneyancers definitely didnt even mention anything about the covenants - it was left to the estate agent to tell us about the existence of a service charge, about a week or so before we completed. In hindsight, everyone but us clearly knew it was a potential dealbreaker - the vendor threatened to pull out if we didn't agree to pay the current year's charge and the estate agents gave us £250 towards 'setting up our new home' to compensate for the stress and inconvenience of last minute info (ie we were paid off....). The conveyancers never said a word.

Cyclemonkey1

So there were common parts in the estate that were maintained using fees from the leaseholders. When you say your previous vendors bought the freehold was this for the "common parts" of the estate the house you in is situated in? How is this structured via a company or do you all just own a portion? We bought the freehold in our block of flats and own it via a company we all own a share in. We still have to pay fees to maintain the common parts, we are in effect leaseholders of the company we leaseholders own.

I assume the common parts that were maintained when the HA was the freeholder still need to be maintained now that you and your neighbours are the freeholder. How do you expect this to be funded if you do think you should have to contribute?

LittleMax

Have you asked the HA to see a copy of the documents that they hold? This will show you what they are relying on to make the charges to you.

TBagpuss

It's very common for there to be covenants with ex-HA properties, and also fairly common for new build estates.

If you haven't already done so, you could ask the HA to let you have a copy of the conveyance mentioned in your deeds. I'm guessing that that the conveyance is the one where the HA sold to the original purchaser so the HA may well have a copy, and it's *probably* a standard one for all their sales.

Normally what happens is that as part of your transfer you will have agreed to indemnify your sellers in relation to the covenants, and there may have been a formal document between you and the HA.

If you think that the charges are excessive then you should be able to look at the accounts in more detail. It may be worth looking at what area the charges cover - for instance, when I had an ex HA property, the 'estate' to which the charges related included our street (mostly terraced house with nothing needing upkeep except a few grass verges) but also another couple of areas, some of which had maisonettes with car parks and flowerbeds, which needed more upkeep, and some flats, which had some common areas.

lost_in_translation_2

Cyclemonkey1 wrote: »

So there were common parts in the estate that were maintained using fees from the leaseholders. When you say your previous vendors bought the freehold was this for the "common parts" of the estate the house you in is situated in? How is this structured via a company or do you all just own a portion? We bought the freehold in our block of flats and own it via a company we all own a share in. We still have to pay fees to maintain the common parts, we are in effect leaseholders of the company we leaseholders own.

I assume the common parts that were maintained when the HA was the freeholder still need to be maintained now that you and your neighbours are the freeholder. How do you expect this to be funded if you do think you should have to contribute?

Its slightly more complicated than that! The estate still belongs to the HA and most of the properties are still owned and managed by them. So they still maintain and run the estate. Our predecessors bought the freehold for our house and the land it sits on.

I am not outrightly objecting to paying any service charges at all, I was just wondering where to find information on what we legally are bound to contribute towarďs. We have always been happy to pay towards work to shared areas of the estate - lighting, lawns, paths, carparks etc. Our objections have been raised by the fact that these charges are becoming excessive (they are now 6 times what they were when we purchased in 2007) and freeholders are being charged disproportionately, incurring almost 3 times the charges applied to tenants. So we wanted every weapon in our arsenal to fight the issue with.

lost_in_translation_2

TBagpuss wrote: »

If you think that the charges are excessive then you should be able to look at the accounts in more detail. It may be worth looking at what area the charges cover - for instance, when I had an ex HA property, the 'estate' to which the charges related included our street (mostly terraced house with nothing needing upkeep except a few grass verges) but also another couple of areas, some of which had maisonettes with car parks and flowerbeds, which needed more upkeep, and some flats, which had some common areas.

Yes, I have been trying to get access to further accounts/documentation information since October, with no joy. I literally think the HA are hoping I'll get fed up of being ignored and go away. I have met with the estate manager and done a walk around of the entire estate, there are no play areas, flower beds, shrubs, bark, chipping etc - its just 3 paved streets with some lawned areas, 3 carparking areas (tarmacked with white bricks to show spaces so lines don't need repainting etc), 5 streetlights (the rest are council) and the odd hedge which overhangs a path (so which they cut back occasionally). That's it! The flats are all individually accessed so no common parts - no shared doors, hallways, lifts etc. This is why we are so puzzled, both by the excessive costs and by the freeholder sinking fund.

We have managed to track down a copy if the original coneyancing which states the expected ' reasonable contribution to the costs' but it does state that the costs should be split equally by all properties that benefit - so I think we have power to challenge some costs on that ground (eg there is a charge for having the accounts audited that they only charge to the freeholders).

LittleMax

I'm confused I thought it was a house...

lost_in_translation wrote: »

We bought our property in 2007. Previously it had been a housing association property but in 2000 the tenants earnt the right to buy and purchased the house freehold...

But now you are talking about a flat...

lost_in_translation wrote: »

Yes, I have been trying to get access to further accounts/documentation information since October, with no joy. I literally think the HA are hoping I'll get fed up of being ignored and go away. I have met with the estate manager and done a walk around of the entire estate, there are no play areas, flower beds, shrubs, bark, chipping etc - its just 3 paved streets with some lawned areas, 3 carparking areas (tarmacked with white bricks to show spaces so lines don't need repainting etc), 5 streetlights (the rest are council) and the odd hedge which overhangs a path (so which they cut back occasionally). That's it! The flats are all individually accessed so no common parts - no shared doors, hallways, lifts etc. This is why we are so puzzled, both by the excessive costs and by the freeholder sinking fund.

We have managed to track down a copy if the original coneyancing which states the expected ' reasonable contribution to the costs' but it does state that the costs should be split equally by all properties that benefit - so I think we have power to challenge some costs on that ground (eg there is a charge for having the accounts audited that they only charge to the freeholders).

I don't understand how you would have the freehold on an ex HA flat.

Crowmann

LittleMax wrote: »

I'm confused I thought it was a house...



But now you are talking about a flat...




I don't understand how you would have the freehold on an ex HA flat.

Try rereading the post - the mention of flats was to highlight the basics of the development.


OP you have my sympathy - I have worked within a number of HA's and stealth increases in service charges to private free/lease holders abound.


You cannot have CEO's on £175k plus pa and not have them come up with some blatantly obvious increases in revenue. Throw in the recent top line rent reductions and I am afraid non ring fenced items like service will continue to rise.

lost_in_translation_2

LittleMax wrote: »

I'm confused I thought it was a house...



But now you are talking about a flat...



I don't understand how you would have the freehold on an ex HA flat.

We don't - it's a house. I was just pointing out that akthough there are flats on the development/estate they do not have any common parts that would incur contributions towards the service charges.

davidmcn

lost_in_translation wrote: »

We don't - it's a house. I was just pointing out that akthough there are flats on the development/estate they do not have any common parts that would incur contributions towards the service charges.

All flats have common parts, even if it's just the roof and walls.