RTM potential fraud of leaseholders

eddddy

I think you need to re-read the surveyor's report.

That should explain what the problems were, and what work was to be done in phase 1 towards fixing those problems.

It's difficult for anyone here to guess what work was done and why.


One wild guess is that some work was done to fix some cracking, and it would then be normal to repaint to hide the repairs - like in the picture below. It would be unsightly to leave the repairs visible.

YoungBlueEyes

If I'm reading this right - the original surveyor said work needed doing, but you now have a new leaseholder/director who disagrees with that. You're worried that the original surveyor wasn't being truthful because they're connected to the managing agent so have a financial incentive to create work.

What qualifications does the new leaseholder/director have that makes you sure she's right? Any chance she just doesn't fancy paying for it so has said "nah that looks fine, and you can trust me I'm a surveyor"? How did she determine that the building is ok? 

I don't know that the 1st surveyor being tied to the managing agent inherently makes it dodgy, but it would make me think twice too. 

Frugal_Bear_3

this is really helpful. the new director says she is a surveyor too but you're spot on that she (& others) don't want to pay out. 

thanks so much for all the replies, i'm thinking neither survey so far can be considered independent so a third actually independent survey is needed. and @eddddy your pictures make an excellent point  about any cracks being fixed. I don't know how a new survey would identify old fixes but that's what I'll ask. 

Big thanks for all the replies and objective perspectives, its been helpful on many levels to have this chat. All the best to you all.