Help challenging freeholder section 20 charges

AdrianC

BBH123 wrote: »

its a disgrace the way Leaseholders are treated in England.

Then don't buy a leasehold property. Rent, or buy freehold.

A lot of these huge repair bills come because freeholders \ managing agents don't collect regular sinking funds

And when they do, people whinge.

they then decide to do massive repairs all at once

Can't win. They do the work, people whinge. They don't do the work, the property deteriorates and people whinge.

frightening the current leaseholder who sells up PDQ and then the whole burden falls to the new purchaser .

...who knew the s20 was there when they agreed to purchase.

You imagine service charges are for regular maintenance on an older building not the costs to virtually rebuild the whole building. This money , many thousands ,was paid.

When you purchased your flat, did your survey make any attempt to look at the building as a whole? If not, why not?

Guess what the Freehold was then sold and the new Freeholder decided the works done before were inadequate

Because they'd been done on the cheap before, in an attempt to stop people whinging.

The whole thing stinks.

You're in for a shock if ever you buy a freehold property.

[Deleted User]

Adrian C - spoken like a true managing agent

AdrianC

BBH123 wrote: »

Adrian C - spoken like a true managing agent

No, just a realist who can see both sides, instead of somebody bearing a grudge.

[Deleted User]

Don't speak of this like some small irritant, its a devastating thing that can have massive financial consequences for people.


Only in England can you be demanded of the price of a family car on demand and the real threat of losing your home if you cannot pay.

AdrianC

It's not "on demand". There is a statutory path that requires a consultation period. That was, it seems, followed correctly here - and the OP was well aware it was underway when they purchased.

Who do you expect to pay for major work to the property, if not the leaseholders?

lindze

AdrianC wrote: »

It's not "on demand". There is a statutory path that requires a consultation period. That was, it seems, followed correctly here - and the OP was well aware it was underway when they purchased.

Who do you expect to pay for major work to the property, if not the leaseholders?

I don't think that there is an issue with leaseholders paying for necessary maintenance, but what is unfair is that for years and years some properties are left to get into such a state that requires £388,500 worth of work and just expect leaseholders to have this kind of money. Estimating £20k and then billing them for a 177.5% increase on that figure is not on. There has to be come accountability on the Freeholder to maintain a property so this is less likely to happen...I mean a total rebuild cost wouldn't be far off this amount surely so what has happened to warrant this cost? If a lack of maintenance has contributed significantly to this then I feel the Freeholder should bear a % of the cost.

I feel sorry for the OP in this situation as this bill is out of control and even if you put your flat up for sale who in their right mind would buy it?

I would be interested in what work has been done and why when leaseholders have sold flats previously did a mortgage surveyor not pick up anything untoward. I have had a mortgage lender place a full retention on one flat that I was considering buying so they should have picked up on something if it is that bad?

AdrianC

lindze wrote: »

what is unfair is that for years and years some properties are left to get into such a state that requires £388,500 worth of work

We don't yet know what work was required, do we?


And, yes, clearly preventative maintenance over time is better than leaving work to build. If possible. It's a Victorian building - if the roof timbers, say, were found to need replacing, that's not a job that you can part-do. Or underpinning where subsidence is found.

Estimating £20k and then billing them for a 177.5% increase on that figure is not on.

I think you might have forgotten the intermediate estimate of £46k - less than a year after the £20k, two years before the final bill - which only increased 20% on the actual work. Was the pre-tender estimate deliberately low-ball for nefarious reasons, as you seem to be assuming? Or did the tender process simply reveal more work than expected? We simply don't know.

I mean a total rebuild cost wouldn't be far off this amount surely

All we know so far is that it's a four-story Victorian building substantial enough to contain 7 flats plus retail space comprising another 25%+ of the floor area. Even that is enough to suggest a ~£400k "total rebuild" is simply unrealistic. Even if it was £400k. We don't even know if the OP's flat is significantly more substantial than others, so gets a significantly larger share of the bill. Let's say first and second floor each contain three flats, third floor is the OP's single flat. That could feasibly put the total bill between the leaseholders of the flats to <£200k, while we don't know what the retail lease says about contributing to freehold repairs.

lindze

AdrianC wrote: »

We don't yet know what work was required, do we?


And, yes, clearly preventative maintenance over time is better than leaving work to build. If possible. It's a Victorian building - if the roof timbers, say, were found to need replacing, that's not a job that you can part-do. Or underpinning where subsidence is found.

Would subsidence not be a buildings insurance claim?

I think you might have forgotten the intermediate estimate of £46k - less than a year after the £20k, two years before the final bill - which only increased 20% on the actual work. Was the pre-tender estimate deliberately low-ball for nefarious reasons, as you seem to be assuming? Or did the tender process simply reveal more work than expected? We simply don't know.

True, I didn't take into account £46k

All we know so far is that it's a four-story Victorian building substantial enough to contain 7 flats plus retail space comprising another 25%+ of the floor area. Even that is enough to suggest a ~£400k "total rebuild" is simply unrealistic. Even if it was £400k. We don't even know if the OP's flat is significantly more substantial than others, so gets a significantly larger share of the bill. Let's say first and second floor each contain three flats, third floor is the OP's single flat. That could feasibly put the total bill between the leaseholders of the flats to <£200k, while we don't know what the retail lease says about contributing to freehold repairs.

I suppose it depends on their lease? My flat is larger than the other flats in our Victorian conversion but we still contribute equally to maintenance costs

I suppose the upshot is that to be able to offer any assistance at all, the OP needs to come back and tell us what was done for the money and a lot more

Shortypie89

lindze wrote: »

Oh if you do submit a tribunal application I think that there is an extra form to complete to request that the freeholder cannot pass on their legal costs to you or other leaseholders.

That's so helpful to know, thank you. I've read about people being stung with very high bills for their freeholder's solicitors and that's one of the reasons I'm quite wary about the whole process.

How did you find the surveyor you used?
I'll definitely look at previous tribunal cases, thanks. And I have an appt. with Leasehold Advisory Service tomorrow.
I put letters through my neighbours' doors originally and made contact with four neighbours who wanted to challenge. Unfortunately one just wanted to use delay tactics and didn't seem to understand the situation. I emailed the other three last week on receiving the final invoice so hopefully they'll want to also pursue the tribunal route now! Thanks so much for all your advice.

Shortypie89

BBH123 wrote: »

Guess what the Freehold was then sold and the new Freeholder decided the works done before were inadequate and we got another massive Sec 20cost.


The whole thing stinks.

I'm very sorry - that sounds horrible!