Self appointment building manager causing havoc

eddddy

gm0 said:

The way this has to work by default at most places is for the complainer to be disappointed by the relative lack of action by directors (and managing agent contractor if used).  Something is seen to be done but little happens.  And the pet rule breaker is mildly harrassed.  And subject to some neighbour disapproval and tutting from those affected.

<snip>

I agree with some of what you say, however...


If I were a leaseholder in this situation (who wants the "no pets rule" enforced), I think I'd probably serve a notice on the directors under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Essentially saying "If you don't enforce the no-pets rule, I will apply to a tribunal to get a Manager appointed who will take over management of the building."

Hopefully that Manager will take more robust enforcement action. But it's also very likely that having a Manager etc will increase service charges.


The lease probably says that I have to indemnify the management company for enforcement costs. So for example, I might have to pay the costs of enforcement initially, but I would eventually get that back from the rule-breaking leaseholder.

See: https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/what-does-appointing-a-manager-mean/

gm0

People always have the legal option - which can quickly cost 10s of thousands - a financial risk - without *certainty* of recovery.  A big deterrent.

In a share of purchased freehold ltd company + leases setup - the defense costs are also you - 1/n anyway and all of your neighbours.  Who will not love you if 50k drops out of the sinking fund to pay lawyers' childrens school fees - and then the problem short term tenant with unruly hounds leaves and an overseas landlord with a shell company proves hard to recover a supposed "win" from due to a lack of legal basis to push the bill from the freehold rep ltd to them as the leaseholder previously but not now in breach.  Thus sending your communal freehold company into a financial tailspin - which damages the value of your own lease and its saleability. Via diminished reserves against planned future maintenance liabilities.  There is no them.  There is only you (in common).  Service charges go up to refill and restore asset/liability balance and saleability. To the dismay of all.

Threats to do this after delays in following up can nudge "freeholder" reps to move a mild legal harrassment letter writing process along. 

In share of purchased freehold with a ltd and volunteer director setup - pushing directors too hard - just leads to exasperated resignation. They say find someone else to do this thankless task standing in the middle of rows about parking pets and planned maintenance costs being too high and too low and wrongly prioritised all at the same time.  You don't like how I am doing it. Then you do it. Enjoy.  Elect a new director.  Any volunteer hands going up.  Thought not. 

Professional management can feel unfamlilar and like "railroading" to people without a business background particularly when there is a lot to do and they are not allowed to witter endlessly and randomly on pet peeves. Casual + informal versions that don't follow their own articles and section 20 etc. can feel arbitrary and cliquey or worse corrupt.  Informality and lack of process rigour also drives ex lawyers and ex accountants up the wall.

You literally cannot please everyone - unless you have several directors with a mix of diplomatic, communication and finance and planning skills.  Who can find balance. Do it competently. And present it digestibly.  And chair meetings.

Hiring and monitoring a competent managing agent to help for accounts and day to day helps. It provides a dump for "disappointment" when not everyone can have everything they want.  They are used to ignoring stroppy leaseholders - its what they do professionally.  Though staff turnover is high.

eddddy

gm0 said:

People always have the legal option - which can quickly cost 10s of thousands - a financial risk - without *certainty* of recovery.  A big deterrent.

If you're responding to my post...

Serving a notice under s22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is free. There's a template on the website I linked to.

Following through with an application to the tribunal costs £100.

So the "threat" to the freeholders/directors of losing control of the building might be enough to push them towards resolving the issue.



If the leaseholder wants to take things further and indemnify the freeholders/directors against the costs of enforcement, the only way I can see that they wouldn't get their money back is if a tribunal rules that keeping a pet isn't breaching the lease.

So perhaps the leaseholder should first seek legal advice on the question "If the lease says 'no-pets', is there a way in which a tribunal can decide that keeping a pet isn't a breach of the lease". (Obviously, I'm over-simplifying the question here.)



And the "pet-owning leaseholder" is risking an equally large amount of money.

If the tribunal rules that they haven't breached the lease by keeping a pet - that's great for them, they keep the pet, and don't have to pay enforcement fees.

But if the tribunal rules that they have breached the lease by keeping a pet, they have to re-pay all the enforcement costs and they have to stop keeping their pet.


So the "pet owning leaseholder" risks losing just as much as the "complaining leaseholder" - and I'd guess that the "complaining leaseholder" has a much stronger chance of success.

So maybe the "pet owning leaseholder" will decide fairly early on that it's too risky to fight. 


 

gm0

Very good points on tribunal being accessible though.  Fair enough that the process for the individual is simple/cheap up front - your post is very helpful. 

But I think missing my point.  Freehold Ltd directors will take legal help = £ (For tribunal process (as freeholder) or for lease forfeiture against leaseholder or both).  Legal queries and letters can cost hundreds to thousands.  Court action tens of thousands and up.  From the communal funds of the estate (owned by the leaseholders in common).
Hence my point.

Lawyers are the only real winners.    To be avoided.

eddddy

gm0 said:

But I think missing my point.  Freehold Ltd directors will take legal help = £ (For tribunal process (as freeholder) or for lease forfeiture against leaseholder or both).  Legal queries and letters can cost hundreds to thousands.  Court action tens of thousands and up.  From the communal funds of the estate (owned by the leaseholders in common).
Hence my point.

Not in the scenario described in this thread - assuming it's a fairly typical lease.

As I mentioned, initially the "complaining leaseholder" would fund the enforcement action.

And the "pet keeping leaseholder" would start getting Service Charge demands for hundreds to thousands of pounds in Admin fees. Would they hold their nerve?

Assuming the "pet keeping leaseholder" is found to be breaching the lease (or they cave in), they would become liable for those costs - so the "complaining leaseholder" would get their money back.

User_3235329

Hi everyone

So I've done some investigation work, from what I can tell there is one resident who in general has a problem with pets. The building manager has told me she can't tell me who because of privacy laws. Is that right? Surely we have the right to know who is taking legal action as stakeholders. Otherwise who's to say she's not making the whole thing up.

Some further info:

• I myself have not had any complaints against my dog (I've trained him not to bark, he has a day care if I need to go places without him and I have trained him to hold toilets until he's off site)
• There have been no pet related warnings or instructions from the building manager to me or as a wider circular.
• I'd estimate at least half the building have some sort of pet. If they are going to enforce the lease even the goldfish have got to go!
• Residents are already frustrated at our sink fund being used to fight a case against one resident (there's an old a bitter rivalry) so we know first hand just because you win doesn't mean you immediately get your money back
• The stakeholders own the building and the board of directors is made up of elected stakeholders (owners) There's no third party building management company involved.

In general the pets are very well behaved, no mess, no playing in the courtyard or running up and down halls. 

It is possible the person threatening legal action has been trying and failing to get the building manager to deal with a specific problem she is notoriously unhelpful and has said during board meetings (I've been told this by people who where there) that she wants residents to police each other. However we have no ground rules.

I think the first thing I will do is try to track down this unhappy person, see if they have indeed become desperate due to no support and offer to mediate a solution. I have also suggested all the pet owners come together to draft some ground rules which, if aren't followed could trigger repercussions. This way people are protected from nuisance pets but we aren't chucking the baby out with the bathwater.

We can also use social pressure for the compromise as legally perusing half the building even if they win will be expensive and could cause the maintenance fee to go up, if it gets to high mortgages start to get refused.

There's been a few people berating me for buying the property - not helpful.
I lived in the apartment for 3 years with my dog before I bought it off my landlord (this is year 6 of him living here) and I knew first hand that a number of residents had had pets for a good 10 years. The blind eye policy was agreed by the board of directors so I decided the risk was low. Anyway I got the apartment for a good price and even if I do end up having the sell it, will have been worth it.

That being said I'm going to give sorting the issue out a go, don't ask don't get!

gm0

Good luck finding a path to peaceful coexistence without lawyers in it.