Leaseholder of flat - Maintenance issue - Advice needed

FunnyFakingSexDirt

I own the lease of a flat and have done for 6 months now. It is a ground floor flat in a terraced house that has only one other flat (on the first floor).

The other flat is owned by the freeholder.

The building is double bay fronted, without guttering on the top of the first floor bay. This is causing water to run off after rain, and settle on the paving up against the external wall next to my bay. This puddling is then penetrating the wall and causing dampening of the plaster inside my flat.

I contacted the Freeholder to discuss how we went about fixing the problem (as quickly as poss) as the flat had just been renovated and I had a new tenant in.

The freeholder replied saying that the guttering I advised wasn't needed, and a roofer had quoted him £500 to fix the roof of the top bay. He suggested we spilt the cost, down the middle. He also suggested getting another quote if I felt the need.

I am by no means a builder, more a capable DIYer, but I could clearly see that guttering was needed to take this excess rain water away from the building. I had a roofer come and look, and he suggested both the roof was fixed and guttering was implemented.

I then contacted the freeholder again and explained that my guy quoted £380 for the roof and £120 for the guttering. I offered to pay for the guttering if he paid to fix the roof of the bay of his flat.

First off, was this a reasonable request or should it always be straight down the middle? Even though I have only owned the flat for 6 months (The freeholder acknowledged the problem quickly, suggesting it may have been there a while) and the problem area was on his flat and not mine?

Secondly, If the lease of the first floor flat was owned by a third party, would we be splitting maintenance 3 ways, meaning I should only be paying a third of any quoted work now? Even though the owner of the upstairs flat and the freeholder is the same person?

Thirdly, he has now come back to me outlining service charges that he had waived with previous leaseholders and carried out maintenance on an adhoc basis. Do you believe I have I been unreasonable enough for him to revert back to annual service charges, instead of carrying out maintenance if and when needed?

Honest opinions welcome, and any advice would be great. As you can probably tell, I am new to this leasing malarkey.

LEJC

I am not going to comment on who should pay what...but I am a great believer in fixed management charges collected monthly.
They do help to alleviate the possibility of a large bill and if they are not used then a good sinking fund can be established.

In your case you and he seem to acknowledge that the problem might be historical and in my mind if charges had been collected regularly neither of you may be in the position that you are now over who should pay for the repair.

Big vote for the reintroduction of a monthly charge...you've not been unreasonable and I wouldnt view it that way...but maybe if the property hasnt been regularly maintained in the communal sense,now is a good time to get something started for going forward.

hazyjo

What does your lease say?


In some instances, the first floor flat will be solely responsible for the roof/guttering.


It's very unlikely it would be split between you, the Freeholder and the 1st floor lessee if different to the freeholder. Usually just the two flats (or like I said, just one flat).


Jx

-taff

What does your insurance say? I would have made a claim to my insurance who would have made a claim on their insurance.
Perhaps if you old them you would be making a claim on their insurance they might suddenly ralise it's their problem.

G_M

Read your lease!

That will tell you how the cost should be allocated. Commonly the cost would be shared between the 2 leaseholders, with the freeholder responsible for arranging the work and collecting the money.

In this case it sounds like the leaseholder upstairs is also the freeholder - but that alters nothing.

However, the lease may stipulate responsibility lies elsewere and as we cannot read your lease, you should!

I'd also suggest getting at least 2 (maybe 3) written quotes for the work, which as well as costs make clear the need for guttering. By presenting these to the freeholder it will be harder for him to argue the guttering is not needed, as well as showing you are being reasonable by seeking good value.

FunnyFakingSexDirt

Thanks for the advice so far,

LEJC - maybe paying the (not so expensive) service charges/rent/insurance each year is in fact the best way to proceed. As it will make upcoming issues a lot clearer.

taff - Is this the kind of thing I can claim to my insurance for? I've never made a buildings insurance claim. Is the issue with the roof not more "wear and tear"?

In regards to the lease: I have read it, several times, yet I am not the best at making sense of the wording of these legal documents to be honest. The lease reads:

The Lessor Hereby Covenant with the lessee as follows -

1.Subject to the payment by the lessee of the contributions hereinbefore provided to redecorate at least once in every five years and to maintain repair and renew as often as may be necessary-

(a) The main structure and exterior (including without prejudice to the generality thereof) the main walls foundations roofs chimney stacks timbers and the main drains gutters and rainwater pipes of the building...

Does this mean that it is a split responsibility that should be paid for using the accumulated service charges? If so what would this mean for my specific situation, where no funds have been collected?

Leven

If the roof has been requiring maintenance for some time and the water damage has been happening for a long time, then the insurance company will probably reject the claim.

Most policies won't cover repair if maintenance has been neglected and/or if the claim is not made within a certain timescale of the problem first occurring.

You need to check the relevant clauses in the building insurance policy.

AlexMac

Given that in my opinion, there's not a hope of this being an insurance issue, the reality is how you establish your relationship with the freeholder. You don't say whether he/she lives there or, like you is an absentee landlord, which might be an issue. When I lived in a block like this (albeit with 6 rather than 2 leaseholders, and shared tenure rather than sole freeholder) we all rubbed along well, trusted each other and took a constructive approach to sharing maintenence costs above and beyond what the leases defined.

Until someone like you came along and treated their leasehold flat, which they rented out, like a money-making business (which to them it was) rather than a home, like ours and the others'. So they argued about costs, resisted paying their share and quibbled about specs, despite the fact that we saved 'em money by taking a DIY approach to minor maintenance, doing the freehold company accounts, etc.

So
- maybe rather than quibbling about whether your £380 quote is better than the freeholder's £500 quote (possibly from someone who cahrges £100 VAT- so £400+VAT; maybe a negligible difference?)
- and noting that s/he has already offered the reasonable solution of a 50-50 split,
- and whether or not s/he agrees the extra £120 for gutters....
How about softeneing your attitude, and accepting that they may think you're a picky newbie, and making positive overtures...? In other words, treat 'em like a human rather than sticking to the letter of the (possibly imprecisely worded) lease, and forcing them to start charging ground rent and other services they mght have carried on ignoring?

If the worst comes to the worst and they only agree the £380-£500 bay roof- the extra £120 for the gutter wouldn't kill you?

Wait til you get hit with a bill for half the cost of the new top roof - possibly £5k-10k; whicg they'd be within their rights to share on you...

Peace and love beats litigation most of the time...

AlexMac

Oh, as an afterthought;
you say the puddling's causing damp internal plaster? Damp's rarely that simple to causally define, so it could be penetration, as you say, it could be a bit of rising damp, or even (the only other third cause) condensation due to poor historic heating and ventilation; either way, long-damp plaster may well have become hygroscopic (google it) for which the only remedy is hacking off, re-rendering and replastering, preferably without the generally unnecessary and over-priced injected DPC. That cost in our shared freehold was in fact spilt by all the leaseholders; not just the two on the semi-basement level, but those upstairs who received no benefit. But then we had mutual respect and a well-written lease! Good luck

G_M

FunnyFakingSexDirt wrote: »

The lease reads:

The Lessor Hereby Covenant with the lessee as follows -

1.Subject to the payment by the lessee of the contributions hereinbefore provided to redecorate at least once in every five years and to maintain repair and renew as often as may be necessary-

(a) The main structure and exterior (including without prejudice to the generality thereof) the main walls foundations roofs chimney stacks timbers and the main drains gutters and rainwater pipes of the building...

Does this mean that it is a split responsibility that should be paid for using the accumulated service charges? If so what would this mean for my specific situation, where no funds have been collected?

No.

You need to also find the earlier wording in the lease "hereinbefore provided" to find out what you have to pay/contribut. It will be in an earlier section.

Alexmac also makes a good point: often a compromise and amicably agreed solution is better than one based on enforcing legal documents. The law can be slow and expensive!

However if there are other issues (now or anticipated) then establishing the legal rights/responsibilities might make more sense.

davidmcn

FunnyFakingSexDirt wrote: »

In regards to the lease: I have read it, several times, yet I am not the best at making sense of the wording of these legal documents to be honest.

Are you sure your solicitor didn't explain it to you at the time?