Water shutoff valves - plumber callout fees

markin2

Paying a plumber to fit your own is going to be far cheaper than solicitor fees.


Unless you can get them to make you a key holder, but that is useless to your buyer!


Buying a key? What would they do if they see you on cctv? call the police? change the lock and charge you for it?

Gn93

Having spoke to a legally qualified advisor at the Leashold Advisory Service it would appear that they are potentially breaching the lease agreement by interfering with my right to Quiet Enjoyment and also by Derogation of Grant as I have an expectation to running water in the lease agreement.

Time to take it to a formal written complaint now I have some legal footing on which to base my argument.

What is also now concerning is that the manco does not appear to be registered with either of the government approved property redress schemes as is legally required of them..

hb2

Gn93 wrote: »

Having spoke to a legally qualified advisor at the Leashold Advisory Service it would appear that they are potentially breaching the lease agreement by interfering with my right to Quiet Enjoyment and also by Derogation of Grant as I have an expectation to running water in the lease agreement.

Time to take it to a formal written complaint now I have some legal footing on which to base my argument.

What is also now concerning is that the manco does not appear to be registered with either of the government approved property redress schemes as is legally required of them..

Please will you keep us informed regarding how this progresses (cos I'm dead nosy!)?

Gn93

If anyone is still following this, the following has happened in the interim: 

I made an official complaint to the property management company claiming they were interfering with my right to quiet enjoyment and were derogating from grant under the terms of the lease (as suggested by the Leasehold Advisory Service, and some on here). I also outlined that they are not registered with a property redress scheme and I would therefore need to alert Trading Standards as this is illegal. 

The official reply came back quoting the following clause from the lease agreement:
"Disputes:
If required by the Landlord to submit any dispute with any other tenant of any other premises in the Building or on the Estate concerning the occupation or use of any part of the Building or the Estate or anything else affected by this Lease to the Landlord for resolution when the Landlord's decision shall be final and binding on the parties." 

As Landlords are not currently required to be registered with any such independent arbitrator such as the property redress schemes it would seem I cannot go after an independent review of the case without going to court which I'm not willing to do. 

The rub here is that the Company Director of the manco and the landlord are the same person. I made my complaint in writing to the manco, he quoted this clause in the lease and re-directed the complaint to the Landlord who have a 'final and binding' say on matters. 

With regard to the manco not being registered with a property redress scheme, there's obviously no point as any complaint made to them just gets sent through to the landlord who are omnipotent and either grant your wish or, most likely, say no. 

anselld

The landlord is not omnipotent, you can still go to the First Tier Tribunal for issues regarding breaches of the lease and you can still complain to Trading Standards that the ManCo are not members of a redress scheme.  (Having a landlord as a director does not relieve them of the that obligation).

notrouble

Gn93 said:

If anyone is still following this, the following has happened in the interim: 

I made an official complaint to the property management company claiming they were interfering with my right to quiet enjoyment and were derogating from grant under the terms of the lease (as suggested by the Leasehold Advisory Service, and some on here). I also outlined that they are not registered with a property redress scheme and I would therefore need to alert Trading Standards as this is illegal. 

The official reply came back quoting the following clause from the lease agreement:
"Disputes:
If required by the Landlord to submit any dispute with any other tenant of any other premises in the Building or on the Estate concerning the occupation or use of any part of the Building or the Estate or anything else affected by this Lease to the Landlord for resolution when the Landlord's decision shall be final and binding on the parties." 

As Landlords are not currently required to be registered with any such independent arbitrator such as the property redress schemes it would seem I cannot go after an independent review of the case without going to court which I'm not willing to do. 

The rub here is that the Company Director of the manco and the landlord are the same person. I made my complaint in writing to the manco, he quoted this clause in the lease and re-directed the complaint to the Landlord who have a 'final and binding' say on matters. 

With regard to the manco not being registered with a property redress scheme, there's obviously no point as any complaint made to them just gets sent through to the landlord who are omnipotent and either grant your wish or, most likely, say no. 

The 'disputes' clause they quote appears to relate to disputes between leaseholders. In those cases, the landlord's decision is final. But that does not apply here as the dispute is between one leaseholder and the landlord.

Are you sure the manco does not need to be registered wih a redress scheme? That does not sem to be what this link says:

https://www.theprs.co.uk/propertyagent/who-needs-to-join

princeofpounds

I really don't think that this clause means what you think it means (or what the landlord is claiming it means). As both Anselld and notrouble have said, it seems to apply to something entirely different, and even if did apply you have certain statutory and common law rights that cannot be overidden by a clause in a lease. You don't lose your rights to a tribunal nor does it change their obligation to join a redress scheme (FYI, I don't know whether they actually have to do the latter, but I'm certain this clause has nothing to do with it).

If that's what they are using for their justification, their case seems rather weak. I know you aren't keen to go to court, but if I were you I would absolutely at least consult with a lawyer and discuss getting a letter written - the threat of legal action may focus minds. Also, I am surprised there is no mention of negotiation around how long the timers run for. Personally, I would encourage you not to be weak about this.
 
The managing agents and the landlords being the same person underneath it all isn't anything unusual. It's just a legal structure for how they run their business. You just have to treat this as if it's the landlord being uncooperative (which it is), and the agent is just their representative.