Managing Company stopped Lifts - Help - Advice Welcome

Thrugelmir

MonSaveHelp wrote: »

Also, they may have opted for a low-cost contractor that will take their time - as opposed to a contractor that applies more resources and gets the work done quicker.

There's no logic in that statement at all. As surely the LL won't be able to let the other flats in the meantime.

Your choice to live on the 6th floor. Lifts like any other mechanical device don't last forever. I doubt the LL would be spending this amount of money unless there was a real neccessity too.

You've been given plenty of notice. So had an opportunity to stock up with bulky and heavy items.

Sometimes energy is better spent about something that really matters in life. As a little inconvenience is something plenty of people would endure to live in a such a property in Central London.

G_M

MonSaveHelp wrote: »

Thanks. The LL owns the whole block freeholder (I think) as they own other buildings around London. Would not be sure how to check it specifically for this building?

Good advice to check through the AST to see if anything is stated about the lift (I doubt it - as AST documents are generally heavy on the tenant responsibilities and very light and ambiguous on the LL responsibilities).

I wanted a periodic AST and the LL insisted on a 2m either way clause in the contract (probably knowing that the works will take that long). It was signed and sent back - although I now believe 2m either way terms are not really enforceable. Is this the case? If its not fixed term, then it has to be periodic - and if that is the case - is should be just 1m notice to the tenant?

Easy to check who owns the freehold of the building. Pay £3 to the Land Registry here and download the 'freehold title' and see if your landlord's name is there. For another £3 you can select the 'leasehold title' of your flat and again, see who is named as leaseholder.

I imagine that even if the tenancy agreemenent does not mention the lift, it would be an implied term of the contracct if there is a lift in the building.

It's unclear what contract you 'signed and sent back'':

* A new fixed term but with a Break Clause requiring 2 months notice? If so, please quote the exact wording of the Break Clause, as well as the dates of the fixed term.

* or a Contractual Periodic Tenancy specifying 2 months notice on either side? If so, it's a perfectly valid contract to which you agreed, though as saajan_12 says, it might be 2 calender months or 2 'periods'. Again - read the contract you signed.

What you are thinking of is a Statutory Periodic Tenancy which arises automatically if no other contract is agreed. So that does not seem to apply here.

For more detail, read

* Ending/renewing an AST: what happens when a fixed term ends? How can a LL or tenant end a tenancy? What is a periodic tenancy?

HampshireH

Also, they may have opted for a low-cost contractor that will take their time - as opposed to a contractor that applies more resources and gets the work done quicker.

But they may not, and they would most likely have had to go out to tender (either for the initial service contract or the repair/replacement work)

The lift seems to be working okay at the moment, I have tried to get the residence together in order to fight this. But its proofing difficult to get it happening and time has slipped by.

.....I'm sure you would be pretty unhappy if it wasn't working and you had opposed the works?

No issues of safety have been raised about the lift. It most probably an decision around the cost of maintenance versus fitting a new one. It always is a £££ decision by the LL.

Do you have a copy of the lift inspection report which proves this statement? How do you know no issues with safety have been raised? The manufacturer may have service intervals where works are required or a routine service may have done so.

The older residents may not be able to cope with this as easily as others and don't seem to have any voice.

They may have been able to provide a serviceable lift during out of work hours.

If you have concerns about the elderly people are you sure the Landlord hasn't put other measures in place for them? Are they concerned - if so I'm sure they would have called their Landlord themselves.

You say may a lot as if you aren't actually sure and purely speculating. The fact you haven't been able to get all the residents to agree to your proposal to halt the maintenance may suggest they aren't on board with your concerns.

Either way I'd be pretty miffed if I lived in a block of flats and someone opposed maintenance work and further down the line I got stuck in the lift because of it.

The LL have a repairing obligation - they are upholding it in the best interest of their asset and their tenants.

You have had 2 months to find either alternative accommodation or make arrangements. I think you will just have to make do.

cjmillsnun

MonSaveHelp wrote: »

No issues of safety have been raised about the lift. It most probably an decision around the cost of maintenance versus fitting a new one. It always is a £££ decision by the LL.

To be quite frank how do you know.

The maintenance contractor who looks after the lift may have raised the concern rather than residents.

It is very unlikely if the lift is undergoing complete replacement that an alternative can be provided at all let alone in a safe condition.

OP you are being beyond unreasonable, you seem to be being deliberately obstructive.

lewishardwick

Having worked in a building where lift replacement was put off due to cost, I'd really recommend you let them do it.

Lifts that break down can take days to repair. It might not even be in a serviceable state any more. Custom made parts are expensive and Tim consuming.

Two months is nothing.

lincroft1710

MonSaveHelp - Do you honestly think a building owner is going to spend a large amount of money replacing a lift, which doesn't need replacing??

Red-Squirrel_2

aneary wrote: »

I would be concerned about the older people, they could end up stuck in their flats.

Or anybody of any age with mobility issues who wouldn't be able to manage the stairs. Surely they have to comply with laws relating to accessibility and disability discrimination, even temporarily?

Thrugelmir

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Or anybody of any age with mobility issues who wouldn't be able to manage the stairs. Surely they have to comply with laws relating to accessibility and disability discrimination, even temporarily?

There are limits. Sometimes common sense has to prevail from all sides.

Red-Squirrel_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There are limits. Sometimes common sense has to prevail from all sides.

How can it be common sense to potentially strand people in their homes for weeks at a time?

This is London remember, so its not like people there always have a choice about living on the upper floors, there were wheelchair users and other disabled and elderly people on the higher floors in Grenfell.

unforeseen

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

How can it be common sense to potentially strand people in their homes for weeks at a time?

This is London remember, so its not like people there always have a choice about living on the upper floors, there were wheelchair users and other disabled and elderly people on the higher floors in Grenfell.

The lift needs maintenance work. How do you propose it is done without removing its use from the building occupants?

Once the lift is taken out of commission for the work it just can't brought back on line for a few hours a day for the occupants.

Good example. Cable replacement. Takes a Day or more to remove old and similar to install new. While the cable is out it would make sense to do all the work needed on the lift motor while no cable in the way. Once that's done then the lift shaft can be maintained, followed by the lift cabin.

Then reassemble it all and carry out all the safety tests the company, H&S and statute decree must be done.

There you have it. A good few weeks work that, once started, takes the lift out of action for a couple of weeks.