Section 20 notice after purchase of flat

parkrunner

margaret.balin wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. The improvement works will be in my benefit, I understand that.

I was trying to also get an agreement that the seller employed deceit and there were perhaps some legal avenues I could pursue. I wouldn't know how to sue someone who might not even be in the country any more. It seems that I'm stuffed with the bill and there's no legal avenue to explore

What evidence do you have of deceit, so far I've seen nothing to prove it.

teneighty

parkrunner wrote: »

It can be served but not received, especially as served by email.

The service or receipt of the notice is irrelevent. As is whether the vendor knew about the earlier correspondence.

The point I was trying to make is the freeholder clearly knew the planned work was imminent but failed to declare it in the information pack.

My very rusty dealings with section 20's and leasehold repairs leads me to think the section 20 served on the new owner is therefore invalid and the freeholder is unable to recover the cost of repairs. The only way around it is if the work was unforeseen or an emergency but that seems unlikely as it was only a week after completion.

But I am happy to be corrected by someone with more current knowledge.

parkrunner

teneighty wrote: »

The service or receipt of the notice is irrelevent. As is whether the vendor knew about the earlier correspondence.

The point I was trying to make is the freeholder clearly knew the planned work was imminent but failed to declare it in the information pack.

My very rusty dealings with section 20's and leasehold repairs leads me to think the section 20 served on the new owner is therefore invalid and the freeholder is unable to recover the cost of repairs. The only way around it is if the work was unforeseen or an emergency but that seems unlikely as it was only a week after completion.

But I am happy to be corrected by someone with more current knowledge.

Yes the freeholder would know but would the leaseholder (vendor) know? Or are you saying the freeholder also has to fill out the information pack? I've never purchased a leasehold so don't know.

margaret.balin

The information pack contains nothing about works. It was given to my lawyers in March but the sale dragged on a while.

I have been in contact with my lawyers who chased their lawyers. So the day of exchange the lawyers asked the seller "Has anything changed about the property" to which the seller responded "no" and also asked him "Are there are any upcoming works to the property" to which the response was also "no".

Since the stage 1 notice was served in June, surely the seller is clearly lying.
Still uncertain what I can do about it though. Since they do claim that no letter was sent and since the managing agent backs up their story, it seems hopeless to get that money back

margaret.balin

The information pack was completed by the director of the managing agent that manages the property.

I don't think the seller was involved with that.
Apparently it cost them to get that ordered a substantial amount.

So who is to blame here? the seller? the managing agent? the lawyers?
I'm stuck with a bill and a many weeks of upcoming building works in and around the flat.

sal_III

margaret.balin wrote: »

The information pack contains nothing about works. It was given to my lawyers in March but the sale dragged on a while.

I have been in contact with my lawyers who chased their lawyers. So the day of exchange the lawyers asked the seller "Has anything changed about the property" to which the seller responded "no" and also asked him "Are there are any upcoming works to the property" to which the response was also "no".

Since the stage 1 notice was served in June, surely the seller is clearly lying.
Still uncertain what I can do about it though. Since they do claim that no letter was sent and since the managing agent backs up their story, it seems hopeless to get that money back

It's far from clear, if it was "served" via e-mail and a lot of other Leaseholders are complaining of not receiving it.

Regardless it will be up to you to prove the vendor knew about the stage 1 notice, which will be next to impossible, under the circumstances.

sal_III

margaret.balin wrote: »

The information pack was completed by the director of the managing agent that manages the property.

I don't think the seller was involved with that.
Apparently it cost them to get that ordered a substantial amount.

So who is to blame here? the seller? the managing agent? the lawyers?
I'm stuck with a bill and a many weeks of upcoming building works in and around the flat.

There is no one to blame. Why are you so set on finding someone to blame and sue for compensation and what not?

The seller - presumably didn't receive the e-mailed stage 1 notice, similar to many of the other Leaseholders.
The management agent - presumably didn't know about the upcoming works in March (the notice was send 3 months later in June) and was never consulted on a later date.
The Lawyers - were acting on the information provided by the above two.

Yes you are stuck with the bill for works and the disturbance caused by said works - welcome to the world of home-ownership, especially Leasehold.

P.S. Karma is a b***h

teneighty

It would seem I got my wires crossed earlier (I did say I was rusty) it seems the freeholders failure to declare planned works invalidating a section 20 only applies to right to buy properties. D'Oh.

It turns out it is only "good practice" to notify purchasers in the information pack and not a mandatory requirement.

That seems unfair to me as purchasers could face huge repair bills as soon as they move in, some can be tens of thousands of pounds. One reason I would never consider buying a leasehold property.

cybervic

I am buying a leasehold flat and my management pack contains Leasehold Property Enquiries Form (LPE1 Form) for freeholders to fill out.

The form asks about section 20 work:
Question 4.8, Within the next 2 years, are any Section 20 works proposed to the Property?
Answer choices: Completed but unpaid / Due / Anticipated / n/a.

Prior to section 20 notice, there would be an inspection followed by a proposed work, followed by getting different quotes, followed by an admin process to serve S20 notice. OP would have to be very unlucky to receive the answer 'NO' to the Q4.8 before all this.

It's not mandatory to use LPE1 form but freeholder still have to provide the information/answers to the questions truthfully (if OP's solicitor asked).

Wanderingpomm

margaret.balin wrote: »

I should have clarified.



I'm sure the seller knew and simply pretended not to have received anything.
I feel absolutely cheated on!

I imagine the sellers felt absolutely cheated on when you guzundered them 24 hours before you completed the sale to.