Dispute between co-freeholders - advice gratefully received!

paddycharlie

I am also with your neighbour as well. I would want to see a structural report by a competent structural engineer prior to the works and have the chance to have it looked at myself.


I would also want to get a number of quotes for the works if I agreed to them.


These problems seem to be of your own doing in ordering the work without following the correct process even if the work was required.


I very much doubt you can get the insurance to pay out on it but it might be worth a try.


If I was you I would just take the hit on the costs if insurance is not an option as legal costs to chase it could dwarf the build costs and you have done a lot of things wrong.

davidmcn

paddycharlie wrote: »

I very much doubt you can get the insurance to pay out on it but it might be worth a try.

I very much doubt it's worth a try. I don't see how it's a normal insured risk from what we've been told, and even if it were, the insurers aren't going to be keen to pay out when the claim wasn't made at the time (giving them an opportunity to inspect, get their own quotes etc).

getmore4less

bike999 wrote: »

Hi All

I am co-freehold owner of a converted two storey Victorian terrace house. There are two leaseholders with me owning the ground floor and the other owning the first floor. The other leaseholder is also co-owner of the freehold. I have recently undertaken an extension to the ground floor flat which involved structural works to remove internal walls and extend. In undertaking these works, the builder uncovered substandard original foundations which were causing movement at first floor levels (bulging walls). The foundations had to be improved by addition of steel box frames at significant expense to the build cost. The builder was concerned about the structural integrity of the rear of the building, hence requiring the improved foundations.

In respect party wall agreements the first floor leaseholders waived the need for party wall agreements and provided confirmation they complied with the works.

The extra cost has been borne by myself (c.£10k), however I consider it is a cost to be shared with the freeholder. They disagree and are refusing to contribute. There is no agreement between freeholders as to how costs are to be split, however in the past for roof repairs, these have been split 50/50.

Is there any case law which considers disputes of this nature which people are aware of?
Could I suggest any future roof repair costs are born by the first floor leaseholders and the foundations are dealt with by me?
Is this a typical agreement?
Or should I make an insurance claim for the cost of the works retrospectively?

Any comments are gratefully received!

Looks like you commenced structural work on a building that was already showing structural issues without getting the issues fully investigated first?

eddddy

paddycharlie wrote: »

I very much doubt you can get the insurance to pay out on it but it might be worth a try.

The only insured risk that could be even vaguely related to this is subsidence.

Since the chances of a successful claim are just about zero, it would be very unwise to contact the insurers to report a 'subsidence incident'. That is likely to blight the property, and cause future premiums to rocket.

If the insurers sent a assessor to look at it, it becomes a 'subsidence related claim' (because the assessor has to be paid), which is even worse.

bike999

Thanks for all responses. Interesting to hear the views.