Sudden £9k section 20 notice - can I do anything?

user1977

CSI_Yorkshire said:

pannonica said:

eddddy said:

pannonica said:

What worries me is that if I have to take legal advice, book in someone else to do a survey, get someone to do quotes etc., this doesn't seem like loads of time to get all that done.

The law says that costs must be 'reasonable'.

You can interpret 'reasonable' as meaning...

• It's 'reasonable' to do all the work - i.e. the repairs and painting are needed. And, for example,  it's 'reasonable' to scaffold the whole building (e.g. as opposed to using scaffold tower, cherry picker, etc)

• The price being charged for the work is 'reasonable' - e.g. They're not paying a firm £5k for scaffolding, when other firms would charge £2k.

That's the kind of thing an suitable building surveyor should be able to tell you.


You don't have to get quotes. You just have to give the council the name of the company.  The council will then ask the company for quotes. (But you should probably ask the companies if they'd be interested in quoting and doing the job - before putting their name forward.)

pannonica said:

Regarding right to manage, the other flat is owned by the local authority, so my understanding is that there isn't a lease. Does this mean right to manage isn't an option for me? I'd be interested in looking into buying the freehold as well (as a more long term thing I guess, not to deal with this issue now) but I'm not sure if this is doable either in this situation.

I think you're scuppered in that case. You won't have the legal Right to Manage, or the legal right to buy the freehold.

In theory, the council could 'voluntarily' sell you the freehold - put I doubt they'd do that while they have a tenant in the other flat.

I don't see how they can possibly argue that it's reasonable to say all this work is necessary. The idea of painting the external walls (the most expensive single item on the list besides the scaffolding) is silly,

But doesn't the document that you provided earlier say the lessor is required "to paint and decorate in a good and workmanlike manner the exterior of the Building"?

That doesn't literally mean they need to cover the entire building in paint. It just means decorate the bits which should be decorated.

CSI_Yorkshire

user1977 said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

pannonica said:

eddddy said:

pannonica said:

What worries me is that if I have to take legal advice, book in someone else to do a survey, get someone to do quotes etc., this doesn't seem like loads of time to get all that done.

The law says that costs must be 'reasonable'.

You can interpret 'reasonable' as meaning...

• It's 'reasonable' to do all the work - i.e. the repairs and painting are needed. And, for example,  it's 'reasonable' to scaffold the whole building (e.g. as opposed to using scaffold tower, cherry picker, etc)

• The price being charged for the work is 'reasonable' - e.g. They're not paying a firm £5k for scaffolding, when other firms would charge £2k.

That's the kind of thing an suitable building surveyor should be able to tell you.


You don't have to get quotes. You just have to give the council the name of the company.  The council will then ask the company for quotes. (But you should probably ask the companies if they'd be interested in quoting and doing the job - before putting their name forward.)

pannonica said:

Regarding right to manage, the other flat is owned by the local authority, so my understanding is that there isn't a lease. Does this mean right to manage isn't an option for me? I'd be interested in looking into buying the freehold as well (as a more long term thing I guess, not to deal with this issue now) but I'm not sure if this is doable either in this situation.

I think you're scuppered in that case. You won't have the legal Right to Manage, or the legal right to buy the freehold.

In theory, the council could 'voluntarily' sell you the freehold - put I doubt they'd do that while they have a tenant in the other flat.

I don't see how they can possibly argue that it's reasonable to say all this work is necessary. The idea of painting the external walls (the most expensive single item on the list besides the scaffolding) is silly,

But doesn't the document that you provided earlier say the lessor is required "to paint and decorate in a good and workmanlike manner the exterior of the Building"?

That doesn't literally mean they need to cover the entire building in paint. It just means decorate the bits which should be decorated.

Catch up, we've moved past this point.

Saying "the idea of painting the exterior is silly" when there is a condition that says "is required to paint the exterior" didn't really match and could have made any direct argument in that vein that the OP tried to use against the S20 not very useful.  And a strict reading actually could mean external walls, because the condition continues (paraphrase) to say and also all the other bits that are already painted.

The OP now seems to have some more clarification about what exactly is planned to be done, which is going to make their arguments against (or challenge to cost) more useful now.

pannonica

Simonon77 said:

If it is just window sills, are they paintable from inside the property  with the window open? I doubt very much any decorators would think of scaffolding the whole building for such a small job if it wasn't the council paying them ! 

Yep, potentially some of the painting could be I guess. That wouldn't work for redoing the sealant on the windows (which is also on the list). It's hard to believe that a job like that really justifies scaffolding the whole building though, especially not at that cost.

pannonica

Simonon77 said:

It also seems quite weird the stuff they have included on the letter they have sent. 4% profit for the contractors? really? I don't know any tradesmen who would work for a 4% profit, even on a £10K job. 

That also seems very strange to me because it implies that without this added 4% they wouldn't be making any profit at all, which is extremely hard to believe. Surely in any quote like this the 'profit' is something that's factored into the actual prices?

CSI_Yorkshire

pannonica said:

Simonon77 said:

It also seems quite weird the stuff they have included on the letter they have sent. 4% profit for the contractors? really? I don't know any tradesmen who would work for a 4% profit, even on a £10K job. 

That also seems very strange to me because it implies that without this added 4% they wouldn't be making any profit at all, which is extremely hard to believe. Surely in any quote like this the 'profit' is something that's factored into the actual prices?

You really would hope so - if not, it's pretty poor pricing by the tradie.

Perhaps some sort of pass-through or uplift?  Like a handling fee?  I know that we add 10% (at least) onto the cost of any subcontractor who is invoicing us rather than invoicing the customer.

Jonboy_1984

It’s pretty common in these sort of arrangements for the top organisers/managing agents profit to be declared to avoid dispute later.

pannonica

Just looking closely at the list again, as far as I can tell the only work they're proposing that's on the first floor is:

• some work on the rear first floor window (repairing the sill, painting, and redoing the sealant)
• painting some fascias and soffits at the rear of the building
• painting a decorative feature at first floor level on the front of the building

It seems like the very expensive scaffolding is all for these jobs. There's also cleaning the gutter which I guess will be easier with scaffolding but it surely couldn't be considered necessary (when I had the gutter cleaned at my last flat scaffolding was definitely not involved).

I'm wondering whether to take some pics of these and see whether I can get a couple of quick check a trade quotes to do this work and then include these in my response. Don't want to waste people's time doing quotes but it I guess it doesn't take long to do a quote from pictures, and I can pass on details in my response as suggested alternative contractors that I'm suggesting they get quotes from.

Just think it might be a good way of demonstrating that the prices they're quoting are not reasonable. I know it would be a bit different to follow all their regulations, fill out their forms etc as well as doing the work, but it might help to give a rough idea? Is this a good idea or not worth the bother?

Simonon77

It does seem ridiculous. Lets be honest, any home owner doing this themselves would be up a ladder, and I  have never seen gutter cleaning companies scaffolding a whole house to do it. Even a cherry picker would be fine as the first floor work is less than a day.

I'm sure it is all part of the councils health and safety stuff. Is there any way you can arrange to get the work done yourself instead of accepting their quote? Pretty sure you can find people who will do it a lot cheaper

eddddy

Perhaps a good starting point would be to ask the council what their criteria is, for accepting a contractor that you nominate.


One reason that the council will be super-fussy / super-cautious about choosing a contractor, is that the council could be liable for the contractor's shoddy work.

For example...

• The contractor paints the windows - but 6 months later the paint is cracked and peeling
• As a leaseholder, you complain to the council, saying it needs to be redone
• The contractor refuses to fix the problem free of charge, and won't refund any money
• Then the council try to charge you again, so you take them to tribunal saying it's not reasonable that you have to pay for window painting twice in 6 months (and the tribunal agrees).

So it's the council who end up out of pocket.

Mildreds_Earrings

Don't forget,  whomever the Council chooses will have £1 million liability insurance (for example) so if you nominate a contractor, make sure they have adequate liability insurance in place. 

All the best.