Help - Held to Ransom - Retrospective Consent for Windows - Changed by Previous Owner.

jaikom

AdrianC wrote: »

£600 seems cheap compared to the costs of challenging.

Yes, your previous solicitor probably should have picked up on it. Bad solicitor. No biscuit for solicitor. But remember they never visit the property...

No Biscuit Indeed... Not sure if I can take this up against them for not carrying out the required checks.

jaikom

AdrianC wrote: »

£600 seems cheap compared to the costs of challenging.

Yes, your previous solicitor probably should have picked up on it. Bad solicitor. No biscuit for solicitor. But remember they never visit the property...

I already paid 600 for the retrospective licence and this 600 is for the survey cost.

eddddy

jaikom wrote: »

I already paid 600 for the retrospective licence and this 600 is for the survey cost.

That makes things slightly more difficult to challenge. Did you say anything that implied that you 'accepted' those fees were payable?

In a recent tribunal case, a leaseholder lost the right to challenge a fee, because he said "that's fine" in an email.

Here's a solicitor's comments on that case:

Mr Garnier [the leaseholder] initially protested against the amount but eventually emailed the landlord to say “that’s fine”, and made the payment.
...
The UT [Upper Tribunal] found that Mr Garnier had agreed the administration charge by paying it and saying “that’s fine”.

Link: Link: https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/property-disputes/lease-administration-charges-not-challenge/

It's best to explicitely say that you are paying under protest, challenging the fee, etc :

... the UT [Upper Tribunal] noted that Mr Garnier [the leaseholder] could simply have reserved his right to make an application to the FTT [First Tier Tribunal] by doing any of the following:

• Simply paying. This would not have constituted any agreement or admission

• Making the payment expressly under protest and/or expressly reserving the right to invoke the FTT’s jurisdiction

The UT commented that if Mr Garnier had done either of the above the landlord could then have taken a view on whether to grant consent in the knowledge that the tenant could challenge the amount. This might have resulted in negotiations and possibly a reduced charge. Instead, the landlord granted consent under the false understanding that the payment was acceptable.

Link: https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/property-disputes/lease-administration-charges-not-challenge/

Slithery

jaikom wrote: »

No Biscuit Indeed... Not sure if I can take this up against them for not carrying out the required checks.

Did you inform your solicitor during the purchase that the windows had been changed? If not they had no reason to know of the issue as they never visit the property.

jaikom

eddddy wrote: »

That makes things slightly more difficult to challenge. Did you say anything that implied that you 'accepted' those fees were payable?

In a recent tribunal case, a leaseholder lost the right to challenge a fee, because he said "that's fine" in an email.

Here's a solicitor's comments on that case:

It's best to explicitely say that you are paying under protest, challenging the fee, etc :

No, Everything is handled by my solicitor and I did challenge it initially and mentioned that we are not happy paying the charges and they seem very unreasonable. All in an email.

jaikom

The windows were changed in 2009 and I bought the property in 2014 so I do not know that the windows were changed. However, FENSA certificate was provided to my previous solicitors at the time, which mean that the windows were changed so they should have picked it up.

rachel230

This should have been done as part of the enquiries by your solicitor.
He did not do a thorough job on your behalf.

rachel230

eddddy wrote: »

That makes things slightly more difficult to challenge. Did you say anything that implied that you 'accepted' those fees were payable?

In a recent tribunal case, a leaseholder lost the right to challenge a fee, because he said "that's fine" in an email.

Here's a solicitor's comments on that case:




It's best to explicitely say that you are paying under protest, challenging the fee, etc :

Really useful post. Thank you.

bertiewhite

Doozergirl wrote: »

I think that windows are structural.

How can they be structural if they need a lintel above? Or am I reading you wrong?

AdrianC

bertiewhite wrote: »

How can they be structural if they need a lintel above? Or am I reading you wrong?

Are they, or are they not, an integral part of the building's structure?

Non-structural things like internal walls aren't. Remove them, and the building functions in exactly the same way. They're purely layout.

Remove the windows. Is the building still functioning in the exact same way?