RTM potential fraud of leaseholders

Frugal_Bear_3

Hi, this is a bit convoluted so I'll try to be direct as possible. 
We're a block of 46 flats, all leasehold. The RTM directors (this was me at the time but I'm no longer a director) were advised by the management company via their surveyors that we had structural work required to the building due to water ingress thus we were obliged to agree to external building work. It was very expensive so we negotiated paying over 3 years and the work being completed in 3 phases rather than a lump sum. 
It is now three years on, as a group the leaseholders have chosen to change the management agent as there is dispute that the work required is not structural - this is because phase one is done and all that has been completed is decorative. 
My question is, were we defrauded/lied to when the advice we were given was structural work was essential - and what can I/we do about it (if anything)? 

user1977

Is there a reason you're talking about fraud rather than simply the survey being incorrect?

In any event, I'm not sure how any of us can form an opinion about it based on the info provided.

Frugal_Bear_3

Apologies, I am novice in this situation and not sure what info is needed. Your response suggests I'm using the term fraud incorrectly. Thank you for that. 
The intent behind asking for help, is that the situation feels analogous to someone falsely claiming that work is required when it isn't, to trick us out of a lot of money. Not unlike stories you hear about 'professionals' claiming insulation is needed to dupe folks out of money when the work done is simply spraying some filler. 
What further information would be needed so I may be clearer please? 

user1977

Is there a back story to this which has led you to think there's some sort of criminal intent to trick people out of of money? I'm not sure who would benefit, especially if the additional work has never been carried out - presumably the money is still sitting in an account?

Has there been a second opinion by another surveyor to check whether there was anything negligent about the first survey?

propertyrental

To comment I think we'd need to know what the work specified entailed. Only then could we advise whether on the face of it the work was structural.

What work was defined and agreed in each of the 3 phases?

Frugal_Bear_3

Yes, a new leaseholder who has stepped up to be director since this was agreed, has said in her professional opinion the building is okay. 

1/3 of the money was spent on phase one - where decorative work was completed - this was supposed to be the start of the structural work. So the surveyor and the mgt agent have that. 
1/3 of the money is in the reserve fund awaiting phase two to begin - has been delayed due to the change of agent and new directors instructing further work to be halted. 
1/3 of the money is due this year for collection. 

Afaik there is no real back story beyond the first surveyor stating the work needs doing (so as the professional his opinion was trusted), now given nothing structural was completed in Phase 1, and the new surveyor claiming it is not needed - it is being suspected as duplicitous. As you rightly question, how would we determine if it was a surveyor who isn't good at his job or someone trying to generate income out of nothing?
The old managing agent's finances on companies house suggest they're not doing great and there is a relationship between them and the surveyor (companies house shows the managing agent as an officer of the surveyor company) despite their claims that the companies are independent so any funds the surveyor earns, some trickles back up to the managing agent as a parent. 

In short, both agent & surveyor makes more money if the work happens than if it doesn't so they would benefit. 

Frugal_Bear_3

@propertyrental
The split of the work was divided into the areas of the block. The block is split into two physical buildings, the front bigger one and a small back one. The phases were: 1) the front of the big block, 2) the back of the big block, and 3) the smaller back block in full. 
Some flats were having issues with water ingress when it rained more than a little. The lease agreement states leaseholders are responsible for the windows, and the freeholder is responsible for the building, including the holes our windows go into. Cracks in those holes from the exterior walls we were told were causing the ingresses - thus the argument it is structural works. The water damage was seen inside some flats and needed repainting/damp management. 

The building was built early 90's so some windows have been replaced, others haven't. Standing on the ground I couldn't personally see much on the walls (and I am not qualified in any way to knowo about such things) but the ingress unsurprisingly was worse on higher floors. The debate I guess comes around if the windows or the hole the windows go into were the cause? 

I really hope this helps. Please lmk if anything needs rewriting. I really appreciate the responses to talk it out.

eddddy

There's a few different angles to this, but focussing in on just one of them...


Based on what you say, I think a better way of expressing the issue is...

• The window frames are the leaseholder's responsibility

• The external walls are the RTM company's responsibility

• Gaps/cracks have appeared where the window frames join to the external walls, which are letting water in

• So who is responsible for dealing with the gaps?

(And maybe some of the gaps are the result of shoddy workmanship, when leaseholders replaced their windows.)

Is that correct?


If so, the question would be...

• Is the RTM company responsible, and the total cost shared evenly amongst all the leaseholders?

• Or is each leaseholder responsible for the gaps/cracks around their own windows?

(If everyone's windows have gaps/cracks, it makes no real difference - the cost is similar either way.)


So is your worry that some leaseholders will object to paying for this work as part of their service charge - because they believe each leaseholder should be paying for their own windows?

If not, what do you see as the problem?

Frugal_Bear_3

Your response is helpful, thank you for helping me reframe this. Let me try again :-)

So the managing agent/surveyor has already confirmed in writing that the freeholder (via the agent etc) are responsible for the cracks so as your point yes - the cost is evenly shared for all, and the agent's surveyor stated this was structural work to fix - hence all this started. 

The leaseholders are now objecting to the costs/work to be done, because yes it is expensive, but also they don't think that it is structural work to be done, that is - it isn't essential work. Their thinking is that given in phase one, nothing was done beyond simply the front of the building was decorated. Meaning, that which was identified as essential structural work hasn't actually happened. So if it didn't happen because it wasn't needed, have we been duped into over-paying for what has turned out to be some paint work? 

NameUnavailable

RTM means that you as leaseholders are in charge of the maintenance.

Did you not employ a surveyor to determine what works were necessary? I would hope that you did (or else how did anyone decide what needed doing or not?).

Frugal_Bear_3

yes, this is in the original question. 

in our situation, there is the freeholder who appointed a managing agency, the surveyor (who came via the agency), and the RTM representing the leaseholders. The surveyor told us originally that structural work was required, identified via the water ingress observed. It was agreed to pay to get it fixed as described above. As the first phase did not include any structural remediation only decorative as recognised, this worry that the RTM has been duped has arisen. The surveyor was trusted as the expert at the time otherwise no work would have been agreed.