Sec.20 Major Works Roof Renewal - Unclear Why Necessary? Advise needed

Schwarzwald

I own a leasehold flat in London. It is a terrace of converted town houses (ca. 14 units). My property together with another flat upstairs forms 1 converted town house.

Three months ago I was informed by the landlord/mgmt company that it intends to undertake Major Qualifying Work at my property, the big majority being a complete roof renewal.
Total estimated costs are £42k (I am approx. 50% of that), of which the roof renewal (£10k) and scaffolding (£7k) are the major items, besides a hefty 15% Management fee (£5.5k).
This is the first Sec.20 and Major Works process I am going through and find the level of information provided shockingly low and absolutely insufficient as a basis to expect me to pay a relatively large amount of money.

The initial Sec.20 notice did not at all explain what is actually wrong with the roof and why it requires a complete renewal/repair.
I challenged the Works, did not hear anything for 8 weeks and was now sent "responses" to my questions.

It transpires our unit is the only unit that requires any roofing work. The roof was last renewed 34 years ago in 1988.
The roof survey which was initially referenced in the Sec.20 notice is by no means a report, it merely is a bullet point summary of recommended works, see picture 1 below.
It does not outline the actual issue with the roof. 
The  landlord/mgmt company just states in an email that there have been "reported leaks".

The only other information included are aerial photos of the roof, see pictures 2 and 3 below.

I am no roofing expert, but to me it remains unclear whether a complete roof renewal is really required, especially after "only" 34 years which doesnt really feel like a long time for a roof.
The provided information has no detail and they havent actually done a "survey".

To me it feels a bit like damp proof course surveys: these firms will always tell you that you need an entire DPC treatment, even if you actually dont.

Can somebody who understands roofs better than I opine?

Am I overly suspicious and sceptical?
Does the roof look like it requires a full renewal?
Is it normal to not be provided with detailed information when sent a Sec.20 for major works like these?
Are 15% management fee really market standard as claimed by the management company?
>> what would be your recommended course of action?


Thank you so much!!



Picture 1 - "survey"

Picture 2 - roof some displaced tiles


Picture 3 -  displaced metal "covers"

tacpot12

I tend to agree that replacing the entire roof does not seem justified. While there are clearly a number of problems with the existing roof shown in the photos, the existing roof covering (which looks to be concrete tiles) seems mostly ok (Concrete tiles are typically expected to last about 60 years). Where there are displaced tiles, the tiles can be reinstalled. It's usually possible to find matching tiles at reclamation yards, and if less than 10 or so are needed, it should be easy to find them. 

The flashings (metal "covers") can be reinstated. They look in good condition, but the mortar has failed. The roofer quoting for the work should pass an opinion as to why this has happened, and what they will do to stop it happening again. 

Another problem is the lack of maintenance on the valley gutter. The gutter is full of moss, and if this is not removed, it will cause problems with water backing up and overflowing the gutter causing leaks. It's a simple job to solve and stay on top of IF you can get onto the roof easily. Usually lack of maintenance occurs because it seems too expensive to arrange the access onto the roof. Now that drones are available, it should be possible to limit trips onto the roof for maintenance only when it is actually needed.

The roofer has allowed a provisional amount to replace the boarding under the gutter if this has gone rotten. To be honest, I would be asking the Management Company to pay this cost - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would say that it is their lack of management that has caused the problem. 

I don't recognise the abbreviation LPL. No idea what it is, but you always have to be suspicious about contractors substituting cheaper materials where the previous job was done with higher quality materials. I would ask the Management Company to find out what it is. It shouldn't really require them to go back to the contractor, but I bet they won't have asked the question and won't know what it is. So much for their "professional" management charge.

It's normal NOT to be provided with much detail about Section 20 work. I own a flat in a block where the local authority is the freeholder and management agent. I've had to write to ask for more detail and put my foot down about work that didn't need doing. (Fire seal replacement on fire doors that were only 5 years old). To some extent this is fair enough as the Management Company is taking on the responsiblity of ensuring compliance with the Building Regulations so that the leaseholders don't have to, but the person paying should always be able to get an adequate explanation as to why the work is necessary. If that explanation isn't forthcoming, I would expect a refusal to pay would be backed up by any court they took you to. (The requirement to consult with the leaseholders must involve 'real' consultation, i.e. a sensible discussion to agree the extent of a problem, and how it should be fixed). 

The service charge for their administration is high, AND it is subject to section 19(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which states that a service charge is only payable to the extent that it is ‘reasonably incurred’. This means that they actually have to incur, or be likely to incur costs of £5,500 in managing the work. This would normally be based on time spent, so ask them for their estimate of how much time they expect to spend and figure out their hourly rate from that. Consider that their expertise needed to manage the contract is probably a little LESS than the expertise needed to perform the contract. You should be paying them less per hour than you are paying the roofing contractor.