Advice please! Share of freehold/company question.

AMD1984

Around a year ago I bought my first home - a one bed, purpose built flat in a small block of 24. I have a share of the freehold and am a director of the company set up to manage the block. All work/general maintenance is handled by the company secretary - there is no property management agent/third party engaged.

This week I returned from a few days away to find that emergency lighting has been crudely and, in my opinion, poorly fitted to the communal corridor and stairwell... wires have just been nailed along the walls to junction boxes and a large light fixture is right next to my front door. Whilst the lighting may be necessary, I think the standard of the installation is so low that it has a negative effect on the aesthetic of the communal areas. At no point was I warned or consulted about the work.

My question is, what can I do about it, (if anything)? I don't know my neighbours well and have only spoken to the secretary on a few occasions.

Any advice will be greatly received!

AdrianC

You have three hats you can wear.
Hat 1 is as a leaseholder.
Hat 2 is as a shareholder in the limited company.
Hat 3 is as a director of the limited company.

The limited company owns the freehold, and manages the building on behalf of the leaseholders (you wearing hat 1).

Everybody wearing hats 2 and 3, shareholders and directors in the company, chose to delegate all their collective responsibility to manage the works to one individual - that individual additionally has a fourth hat, that of the building manager.
(Their fifth hat, CoSec, is irrelevant for this purpose - that just means they're the one legally reponsible for doing the Ltd Co paperwork)

The wearer of hat 4 has exercised that authority in the way they felt most appropriate - in this case, they've prioritised lower cost and disruption over the appearance of the final work.

If you have doubts about that prioritisation, then raise them - either directly as hat-1-wearer to hat-4-wearer, through a meeting of the directors while wearing hat 3, or through the AGM while wearing hat 2.

eddddy

AMD1984 wrote: »

This week I returned from a few days away to find that emergency lighting has been crudely and, in my opinion, poorly fitted to the communal corridor and stairwell... wires have just been nailed along the walls to junction boxes and a large light fixture is right next to my front door. Whilst the lighting may be necessary, I think the standard of the installation is so low that it has a negative effect on the aesthetic of the communal areas.

Realistically, I doubt the Company Secretary asked the electrician to do a messy, badly designed job.

The company secretary might be as angry as you about the poor workmanship.

So maybe start by approaching the company secretary with something like "What are we going to do about the electrician's poor standard of work?" - and gauge their response.


There may be formal legal routes that you can pursue as a leaseholder etc, (for example, should a section 20 consultation have been done?), but maybe you want to just try a friendly, informal approach first.

AdrianC

eddddy wrote: »

Realistically, I doubt the Company Secretary asked the electrician to do a messy, badly designed job.

We don't know they did.

All we know is that the wiring's been surface-clipped rather than chased in - and that the OP is a bit miffed at a light being near his door.

AMD1984

Thank you Eddddy and especially Adrian for your comprehensive reply.

It's true the other occupants maybe quite happy with the very exposed nature of the installation... Personally I think the look of communal areas is very important which is why this has bothered me. I acknowledge that an alternative would have been more costly and disruptive but think we should have been consulted.

I will aim to speak to the Secretary this week and see what the response is. The sad truth is I shall probably have to just accept the work as it is and put up with it.

eddddy

AMD1984 wrote: »

I acknowledge that an alternative would have been more costly and disruptive but think we should have been consulted.

If you're being asked to pay as leaseholder, and your contribution is over £250, then the laws says that you should have been consulted - it's called a section 20 consultation.


... But if you're being asked to pay as a joint freeholder, there are no specific laws to protect you. So you have to pay what you have contractually agreed to pay.

AdrianC

eddddy wrote: »

If you're being asked to pay as leaseholder, and your contribution is over £250, then the laws says that you should have been consulted - it's called a section 20 consultation.

Over £250 on top of whatever normal contributions to the sinking fund.

The OP's said nothing about paying for it - only that they don't like the way the work's been done. So it's entirely possible that it's been funded from the sinking fund entirely. No consultation is required.

AMD1984

Adrian - when you say no consultation is required, is that still the case if we're all company directors? Or is the directorship just an administrative thing.

Thanks again - you've been really helpful.

AdrianC

AMD1984 wrote: »

Adrian - when you say no consultation is required

Sorry, that's between the limited company and you, the leaseholder (hat 1).

is that still the case if we're all company directors? Or is the directorship just an administrative thing.

As a shareholder and director of the limited company, you've delegated all the hands-on management to this one individual (hat 4).