what's the legit way to split shared costs between flats in a converted house?

LadyMac1

Hello, I've tried googling for an answer to my questions without luck, I'm hoping someone here can help. I'll try to explain the set up as simply as possible.

Building is classic set up of old Victorian house split into 5 flats. Each of us holds a share of the freehold and we do the management company ourselves (one of the flat owners does the annual return and we pay a small fee to her for doing it). I bought my flat in 2006 and there was a pre-existing percentage split in place for allocation of any shared costs (insurance, repairs etc). Every year we manage to incur some repair costs beyond the normal month to month costs. I've asked in the past how the calculation for the split was originally made, no one knows, and I've just accepted it. Mine is the second largest percentage. They go 12/18/18/23/29, so it makes a big difference, and it seems to relate to the size of the flat.

In the last two years, one of the flats has added an extension. When discussing her plans, I raised that it would mean we'd need to recalculate the percentages, and she agreed (documented in email). But the extension is finished and this hasn't happened. When queried, we've been told that they were advised the difference would be negligible and so it wouldn't be worth the solicitor's fee to do it.

I have several issues with this:
- first of all, it just doesn't feel fair. If the percentage is based on size of flat and your flat size increases, then the fair thing is that your contribution goes up.
- if the square metres isn't relevant, then we should just split it 5 ways
- there is now more exterior to the house (and an additional flat roof) which I will be expected to contribute to the external maintenance of - so my exposure goes up because of her extension, again feels unfair
- plus the notion that the difference will negligible is clearly meaningless because it's a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string thing. Even a 1% change makes a difference, yes it's negligible on a £100 cost, but what if the front of our house falls off?

A new bill is heading our way for repairs so myself and the 29% flat owner are using this as leverage to get this sorted, by which I mean we've agreed to the costs on the basis of this outstanding issue being resolved first.

I know we probably need to seek professional advice - but who from, who is the person to go to answer these questions?

And I'd like to understand what best practice is so I'm asking the right questions so would love your input.

Also, am I simply wrong here? I don't want to damage neighbourly relations if I'm misunderstanding something. But to me, I feel aggrieved about this. I should probably mention that the neighbour in question is often difficult, and as a result we generally avoid pushing issues as it doesn't seem worth the aggravation caused. However, that adds to my feeling that this shouldn't be allowed to slide simply because someone is difficult to deal with (rewarding bad behaviour).

Thanks for your insight on this!

Doozergirl

Did the leaseholder in question get freeholder consent for the extension? 

Because this is the sort of thing that might come up in those negotiations.  I'd actually be making them responsible for that new roof, if possible! 

LadyMac1

Yes they got consent but it wasn't done in a formal way, meaning nothing drawn up by a solicitor. But it was discussed with leaseholders and plans were shared. As part of this discussion, there was an agreement to recalculate the percentages but now the work is finished that's not being done.

Doozergirl

LadyMac1 said:

Yes they got consent but it wasn't done in a formal way, meaning nothing drawn up by a solicitor. But it was discussed with leaseholders and plans were shared. As part of this discussion, there was an agreement to recalculate the percentages but now the work is finished that's not being done.

They won't be able to sell without formal permissions.  

You need to speak to solicitors.  Your responsibilities as joint freeholders aren't informal ones!  You should be able to get your way here.  

bris

It should be calculated on the square meterage of the flats. The new extension will obviously increase the size so the percentage of the flat should go up.

It's time for a new agreement to be drafted, they increased their flat size so really they have no complaints. 

Sandtree

No matter what you do there will be scenarios where someone will be worse off... our last place was square footage based with all paying for everything so you had people on the ground floor complaining that they were paying for the lifts that they "never" used.

The development next door shared some of our facilities and contributed to our service costs. In that site they didnt pay towards the lifts on the ground and 1st floor but their parking was below our carpark and their lift did go to ground (obv for upper floor people getting out) and so those on ground could use the lift from the carpark and those on 1st could get the lift to 2nd and then walk down. 

We had concierge that took in parcels but there were 8 flats with doors to the street where parcels were delivered directly so arguments as to why they paid for concierge.

Our currently place each unit pays the same share irrespective of size or if there is realistic prospects of using the facilities (eg lift). 

You need to come to a formal agreement and get it appropriately drawn up by a solicitor... what the agreement is will ultimately be a negotiation and people will at times get the short end of the stick.

Rosa_Damascena

LadyMac1 said:

Yes they got consent but it wasn't done in a formal way, meaning nothing drawn up by a solicitor. But it was discussed with leaseholders and plans were shared. As part of this discussion, there was an agreement to recalculate the percentages but now the work is finished that's not being done.

Your neighbour has money to spend on an extension, but not on legal fees. Seems like a decision based on convenience rather than proper consideration to me, so make it important to them. They will always find something better to spend their money on so, have no compunction in making it their problem.

theoretica

Also seems very relevant whether only the neighbour with the flat roof pays for hte upkeep of the flat roof and that bit of the property.

Doozergirl

theoretica said:

Also seems very relevant whether only the neighbour with the flat roof pays for hte upkeep of the flat roof and that bit of the property.

I think they should.  It should be an appropriate share of the main house but the extension should be their own problem! 

LadyMac1

Thanks for all the input everyone! It's really helpful just to know that I'm not getting the wrong end of the stick or being unreasonable. And yes, clearly, I need to get a solicitor involved now - just wanted to check first. I've been taking the ostrich approach up till now, but seems my mouth is full of sand now, so time for a new plan  

Doozergirl

LadyMac1 said:

Thanks for all the input everyone! It's really helpful just to know that I'm not getting the wrong end of the stick or being unreasonable. And yes, clearly, I need to get a solicitor involved now - just wanted to check first. I've been taking the ostrich approach up till now, but seems my mouth is full of sand now, so time for a new plan  

I am also familiar with the taste of sand! 

It's easy when it's someone else's problems!