Division of repair expenses in managed property

nohassles

I live in a property with many shared flats where some owners (each owning multiple flats) are trying to push through some repair work which is primarily to benefit them and speed up their attempts to sell their properties, and will have no benefit to me and many of the other owners, but these owners want the costs to be divided equally. Between them they have a majority so in any decision-making processes the other owners are sure to be voted down, but I wanted to see if there is any kind of precedent of similar situations. We have RTM but have appointed a management company. I know that hypothetically there may be a situation where I want some work done on the building that won't benefit anyone else, but there must surely be some kind of protections in place to stop certain owners just doing whatever they want?

bouicca21

What does the lease say about repairing responsibilities and how payment is to be calculated?   

princeofpounds

As Bouicca said, the leases usually specify how service charges, which include repair costs, are to be split. 

Frankly, almost all costs are normally split between all properties, either evenly or based on something like floor area. Otherwise you get the old situation where the bottom floor flat doesn't want to pay to repair the roof, and the top floor flat doesn't care to pay to repair the foundations...

NameUnavailable

Any works have to be necessary and within the remit of the lease. They can't for example just decide they want to fit new fencing or repaint everything, if the fences are fine and the paintwork isn't due to be done for 3 years.

What are they saying they want to do and what does the lease say about such work?

greatcrested

Your lease is obviously your first port of call, but in determining what repairs (or indeed maintenance/redecoration etc) are needed, it is likely tobe the RTM company that makes the decision (subject to terms of the leases).

The RTM company will have its own rules/articles as to how decisions are made, so look at those too, but you are probably right that it will be a majority decision.Once the decision is made,the management company will be instructed to organise the works and collect payment I imagine.

.

eddddy

Presumably you're a leaseholder.

The lease will specify repair obligations. The RTM Co should be doing all repairs required by the lease, they shouldn't be voting about which ones to do and which ones not to do - they should do them all.

And if they're doing repairs beyond those required by the lease, they can't insist that you pay for them.

Have you formally notified the RTM Co about the repairs that you feel should be done?  If so, what was their response?

The lease will also specify how much of any repair costs is chargeable to to you.

nohassles

Thanks for all of your replies...
eddddy said:

Have you formally notified the RTM Co about the repairs that you feel should be done?  If so, what was their response?

The lease will also specify how much of any repair costs is chargeable to to you.

I don't have any current repairs that I want to be done. When you, and greatcrested refer to the "RTM Co", are you talking about the company that was created to facilitate the RTM takeover, or the management company that the majority owners appointed?

princeofpounds said:

Otherwise you get the old situation where the bottom floor flat doesn't want to pay to repair the roof, and the top floor flat doesn't care to pay to repair the foundations...

What's so wrong about this situation?

I haven't looked at the lease since I bought the place, I will need to do some digging over the weekend!

MaryNB

nohassles said:

Thanks for all of your replies...
eddddy said:

Have you formally notified the RTM Co about the repairs that you feel should be done?  If so, what was their response?

The lease will also specify how much of any repair costs is chargeable to to you.

I don't have any current repairs that I want to be done. When you, and greatcrested refer to the "RTM Co", are you talking about the company that was created to facilitate the RTM takeover, or the management company that the majority owners appointed?

princeofpounds said:

Otherwise you get the old situation where the bottom floor flat doesn't want to pay to repair the roof, and the top floor flat doesn't care to pay to repair the foundations...

What's so wrong about this situation?

I haven't looked at the lease since I bought the place, I will need to do some digging over the weekend!

If the foundations fail, well the top floor flat isn't going to support itself. If the roof fails and the occupants of the top floor flat don't repair it rainwater will eventually make its way further down. Both the roof and foundations are critical to the building as a whole, not the just adjacent flats. 

greatcrested

The RTM company was set up by the leaseholders to be responsible for the management of the building, taking over that responsibility from the Freeholder.

In some cases the RTM company does all the work itself, collecting service charges, arranging maintenance etc.

In some cases, as here, and just as a Freeholder might, or might not, have done, they employ a professional building management company to do the actual work - as directed by the RTM company.

As has been explained, the RTM Company has to make sure that they, or the company they employ, comply with the leases. An issue arises if the leases are unclear or ambiguous.

For example, if the lease requires the freeholder (now RTM company) "to redecorate the communal hallway every 4 years", then that's what they must do. If the leases say more generally "to redecorate the communal areas as required" then obviously that is a subjective opinion and a decision (perhaps requiring a majority vote if that's what their rules say) is needed as to when it should happen.

eddddy

nohassles said:

 When you, and greatcrested refer to the "RTM Co", are you talking about the company that was created to facilitate the RTM takeover, or the management company that the majority owners appointed?

The RTM company would be what you describe as "company that was created to facilitate the RTM takeover" - and they continue to be responsible for the management of the building.

However, the RTM company have appointed a management company to do all the work for them.  So the RTM company tell the management company what to do.

nohassles said:

I haven't looked at the lease since I bought the place, I will need to do some digging over the weekend!

Yes, you should.

• The lease will list all the responsibilities of the freeholder, and the RTM company has taken over those responsibilities. Those responsibilities might include: maintaining the outside of the building, redecorating the common areas, etc (They will be things that the RTM are required to do. Not things they can choose to do or vote about doing.)

• The RTM company will probably ask the management company to arrange the maintenance, redecoration etc on their behalf.

• The lease will say what percentage of the cost of maintenance and repairs are payable by you

• But you're only required to pay towards things that the lease says the freeholder must do. (So if work is being done which isn't required by the lease, you don't have to pay for it.)

It sounds like you are unhappy with that arrangement. But unfortunately, you agreed to them when you bought the lease.

Unfortunately, the bottom line is that you shouldn't have bought the lease, if you didn't like the terms of the lease.

eddddy

greatcrested said:
 If the leases say more generally "to redecorate the communal areas as required" then obviously that is a subjective opinion and a decision (perhaps requiring a majority vote if that's what their rules say) is needed as to when it should happen.

The RTM members can vote on things, but the key test is whether what they eventually do is 'reasonable' (and within the terms of the lease).  Voting in favour of something doesn't necessarily mean it's 'reasonable'.

For example,

• the RTM members might vote in favour of redecorating, and add the cost to the service charge.

• But one or more leaseholders could challenge the service charge at a tribunal - on the basis that it was not 'reasonable' to redecorate, and therefore the service charge is not 'reasonable', and shouldn't be paid.

In an extreme case, the RTM company might vote to redecorate every 6 months, or vote never to redecorate - but neither of those options would be 'reasonable'.