Freeholder Failed To Insure In Joint Names

BombayBadBoy

I live in a 999-year leasehold flat, I bought it in 1988, it is a semi-detached house converted into two flats, I did the conversion myself, the ground floor flat has possession of the freehold, the owner has £3 to £4 million in properties, I have paid off the mortgage. Back in August 2019 there was a fire that started in the freeholders flat and spread to mine, there is quite a bit of structural damage since he bought the freehold I have asked him to insure in joint names several times but he has only noted the leaseholders interests, I have always paid my half of the insurance. I am living in a burned-out flat at the moment. I did not have contents insurance. The lease states:

(2) To insure and keep insured the said building and Landlord’s fixtures therein against loss or damage by fire and such other risks as are covered by a comprehensive insurance in some insurance office or with underwriters of repute to the full insurable value and in the joint names of the lessor and the lessee and in the case of destruction of or damage to the said building or any part thereof from any cause covered by such insurance as to make the same unfit for habitation and use to lay out all monies received in respect of such insurance (other than for loss of rent and architects’ and surveyors fees) in rebuilding and reinstating the same as soon as reasonably possible.

I issued a court order, the correct form it’s a no money claim form, back in mid-November, he has filed a defence and I have submitted two letters to the judge, one of which is nine pages long, now he is playing avoidance tactics and is claiming to be out of the country till March, I have not got a solicitor and I am taking all the legal action myself, I would describe myself as quite proficient in civil law.

Questions.

1. How can I continue the court proceedings in his absence?.

I am about to apply for an emergency court hearing to ask the judge for direction, any ideas on this one?.

2. After the claim is found against the freeholder, how do I apply to the court for compensation, I’ve got a rough idea but would appreciate some input.

3. I’m thinking of trying to claim about £80,000, does that sound about right or too low, or too high?.

elsien

How have you arrived at your 80k figure? Without seeing the damage to the building or any knowledge of what remedial work may be needed (as contents are not included) no one can possibly comment on the amount.
What has the freeholder's insurer said about paying out for any necessary building works? It's not usual for the freeholder's insurance to be in joint names..
Z

BombayBadBoy

This is the second of several cases I will be issuing, I won the first case already but it was only a small claim, the freeholder and his tenants had been harassing me and bullying me for fourteen years trying to take this flat off of me, this is the second fire, now I discover that the public liability on the insurance would pay him about £125,000 if I had died in the fire, and he intends to take my flat when I die, so if I died in a fire here he would profit £250,000, I have no relatives and I am terminally ill, this freeholder is like a Rackman cross Hoogstraten, he is trying to get out of paying for the damage hence the court action, the official reason for the fire is electrical fault but unofficially it was arson.

I always thought that the insurance I paid every year included contents, since the fire I have separate contents.

Everything in my flat was smoke and water damaged including £20,000 worth of paintings ruined which I bought as an investment.

I wasn’t planning to claim compensation until after the next two cases, which deal solely with the fire hazards he has created, he has built a bungalow in the garden on my gas pipe, this could cause an explosion and he has cut through the boundary wall and installed a spaghetti junction of fire hazards on my property, gas pipes and wires.

This is what I am basing the £80,000 figure on.

HampshireH

Its sounds a bit confusing and a 9 page letter without reading it sounds like rambling which will bore a judge.

Your claim should be via the insurance company for structural.

Your claim for contents should be with your provider. That is the whole point of it. (I am aware you dont have this but that isnt anybody elses fault)

£80k for building a bungalow in the garden etc seems to be mixed up. Have you been to the planning department at the council and had a building inspector out?

Compensation is usually for a loss. I don't understand how these hazards you refer to make a loss.

If you are genuinelly living in such a high risk situation would your efforts not be better placed trying to reduce the risk rather than seeking money?

eddddy

I think you probably need to instruct a solicitor to get proper legal advice.

From your post, you sound confused about how things work, so you may end up losing your claims.

BombayBadBoy wrote: »

Back in August 2019 there was a fire that started in the freeholders flat and spread to mine, there is quite a bit of structural damage since he bought the freehold I have asked him to insure in joint names several times but he has only noted the leaseholders interests, I have always paid my half of the insurance. I am living in a burned-out flat at the moment. I did not have contents insurance.

Are you saying that there is fire damage to the building which has not been repaired by the insurers?

If so, why have the insurers not paid for the repairs?


Additionally, the type of things you have to think about include:

BombayBadBoy wrote: »

Everything in my flat was smoke and water damaged including £20,000 worth of paintings ruined which I bought as an investment.

I wasn’t planning to claim compensation until after the next two cases

To claim compensation/damages from the freeholder, you would have to show that the damage was caused by the freeholder's negligence.

What did the freeholder do that was negligent? Do you have sufficient evidence to prove the negligence in court?

BombayBadBoy wrote: »

This is what I am basing the £80,000 figure on.

You can't pick numbers like £80k out of the air.

If the freeholder was negligent, you'll need a detailed list of your resulting losses, with evidence.

For example: An expert report saying that a painting has been smoked damaged, and will cost £x to clean. (Then you can claim £x for cleaning that painting.)

loubel

As eddddy says you sound very confused about what you are claiming.

Mending the damage to the building is down to the insurance company. Has the freeholder submitted a claim? Unfortunately insurance claims can be very slow. You say you are noted on the policy (as leaseholder) so you should be able to speak with the insurance company to find out timeframes and procesures etc.

Damage to your contents should have been covered by your own contents insurance but you didn't take this out. If you can prove the freeholder was at fault then you might be able to sue him for your uninsured losses. You will need to go to a solicitor for a proper opinion. Presumably you reported your concerns of arson to the police? Do you have a fire report stating that the electrical fault was due to negligence?

Not sure what relevance the bungalow is. Presumably this was built with planning permission and building regulations consents? Have you spoken to building control about your concerns about the safety of the build? Was this connected to the fire somehow?

I would strongly recommend seeking legal advice before proceeding further with your various claims.

[Deleted User]

Just to say that when we moved into our leasehold flat last year (again a house converted into two flats) our solicitor insisted that the building insurance had to be in joint names, ours and the freeholders. He wouldn't let the sale proceed until it was, as he advised us that the insurance would be invalid otherwise. So I'm wondering if that's why the freeholder's insurance haven't paid out for the damage to the OP's flat.

AdrianC

BombayBadBoy wrote: »

the freeholder and his tenants had been harassing me and bullying me for fourteen years trying to take this flat off of me, this is the second fire, now I discover that the public liability on the insurance would pay him about £125,000 if I had died in the fire, and he intends to take my flat when I die, so if I died in a fire here he would profit £250,000,

This sounds as if you're completely misunderstanding the situation.

When you die, your assets - including your leasehold flat - go to whoever you leave them to in your will. If you have no will, the rules of intestacy are followed.
https://www.gov.uk/inherits-someone-dies-without-will

There is no way the freeholder of the building will gain ownership of a 900+-year-leasehold flat simply because the leaseholder has died with no easily identifiable beneficiaries.

the official reason for the fire is electrical fault but unofficially it was arson.

That's one heck of an accusation when the official fire report says otherwise.

I always thought that the insurance I paid every year included contents, since the fire I have separate contents.

Everything in my flat was smoke and water damaged including £20,000 worth of paintings ruined which I bought as an investment.

It's very unlikely vanilla contents insurance would have covered those anyway - and certainly any assumed implicit contents insurance as part of a freeholder's buildings policy would never have done so.

The buildings policy certainly should be covering the structural damage to the property, though.

Combine all the eyebrow-raisers in your posts here with your mention of a nine page letter as part of one claim, and it seems to me that you really do need professional legal advice.

But... You say you're terminally ill. Forgive me for the intrusion, but would likely timescales combined with your lack of obvious beneficiaries for your will mean that you may be better focussing your remaining time on something less... confrontational?

eddddy

Rabbit24 wrote: »

Just to say that when we moved into our leasehold flat last year (again a house converted into two flats) our solicitor insisted that the building insurance had to be in joint names, ours and the freeholders. He wouldn't let the sale proceed until it was, as he advised us that the insurance would be invalid otherwise. So I'm wondering if that's why the freeholder's insurance haven't paid out for the damage to the OP's flat.

That's unusual.

Most leases require that the freeholder insures the building.

But if the freeholder has failed to correctly/adequately insure the building, as required by the lease, and the leaseholder has suffered a loss as a result, the leaseholder can claim against the freeholder.

(For example, in this case, if the freeholder didn't take out the correct type of buildings insurance policy, so the insurance company won't pay for fire damage to the building - the OP could insist that the freeholder repairs the building at the freeholder's cost.)

[Deleted User]

eddddy wrote: »

That's unusual.

Most leases require that the freeholder insures the building.

But if the freeholder has failed to correctly/adequately insure the building, as required by the lease, and the leaseholder has suffered a loss as a result, the leaseholder can claim against the freeholder.

(For example, in this case, if the freeholder didn't take out the correct type of buildings insurance policy, so the insurance company won't pay for fire damage to the building - the OP could insist that the freeholder repairs the building at the freeholder's cost.)

I agree that it's unusual and the freeholder wasn't too pleased to be told that they had to have join insurance with us either. Previous leaseholders had always taken out their own building insurance, which I realise is the opposite of what you're saying above. But our solicitor insisted that the freeholder had to take insurance out for the whole building and add our names to it before he would ask for the mortgage money to be released.

BombayBadBoy

eddddy wrote: »

That's unusual.

Most leases require that the freeholder insures the building.

But if the freeholder has failed to correctly/adequately insure the building, as required by the lease, and the leaseholder has suffered a loss as a result, the leaseholder can claim against the freeholder.

(For example, in this case, if the freeholder didn't take out the correct type of buildings insurance policy, so the insurance company won't pay for fire damage to the building - the OP could insist that the freeholder repairs the building at the freeholder's cost.)

The law is that the freeholder/landlord must adhere to the covenants in the leasehold contract.