Major Works Clawback Confusion

Prodflop

Hello All,

I'm writing this as I can't find any answers to similar questions online so was wondering if anyone has any experience with a similar issue. 

I live in a leasehold flat. Major works were carried out based on section 20. My flat's contribution was paid over two years ago (around 6.5k) prior to work starting. The builders have all been paid from the S20 funds around one year ago. 

However, the freeholder has now issued an additional £2,500 for window repairs carried out during the major works. 

The lease is currently interpreted to mean all aspects of the window, including external timber, are demised to the leaseholder. 

However, at no point was I told work was being done on the windows, presented with quotes, or allowed to modify or reject the work, or seek a different quote.

The only mention of this is a clause in the specification contract that notes that for any further work on windows, they will "provide an itemised quotation and photographic record for all work." The specification does identify other issues with windows in other flats explicitly, but not mine. 

In essence, work was done on my demised property without consent. Am I liable to this money? Moreover, the freeholder has claimed he will use costs recovered not for rebuilding the sinking-fund, but for other associated costs. In essence, is any of this legal? 

eddddy

So you're saying that

• you own the windows (i.e. they are demised to you) and you are responsible for maintaining them.

• the freeholder claims they have done £2500 of repairs to your windows without your consent, and is asking you to pay the £2500.

If that's the case, clearly you don't have to pay the £2500.

(Unless the freeholder is claiming something like you breached a covenant by not maintaining the windows, and so they had to step in to maintain them. But they should have given you plenty of fair warning before doing that.)

I guess you should try to clarify with the freeholder why they think you owe the money.




Or is the payment being demanded as a service charge that is payable according to the lease? (e.g. for work done on communal parts of the building.)

In that case, there's the question of whether another s20 consultation was done, and the question of the "18 month rule". (i.e. You must be informed of Service Charges within 18 months of them being incurred.)

https://www.lease-advice.org/case-study/service-charges-18-month-rule/

Prodflop

So there was a section 20, which was funded by leaseholders.

During the works, they also repaired our flats individual windows which are demised to us; in the specifications of work contract, it states quotes will be provided for any additional work on windows. These were not provided. The work was done, and payment issued by both the additional section 20 funds and the reserves fund. 

Now the work is completed, the builders are paid, and one year later we are being told we also owe for the windows, as a kind of clawback into the reserves fund (alongside freeholder saying they will use the funds for other costs)

This is definitely something that can be contested at tribunal. The freehold is threatening to raise service charges to recover the funds. It seems quite mad! 

eddddy

Prodflop said:

This is definitely something that can be contested at tribunal. 

You can challenge service charges at a tribunal.  But based on what you say, this isn't a Service Charge.

Service Charges relate to things the freeholder must do according to the lease (which doesn't include repairing your windows).

This sounds more like an alleged "private deal" between you and the freeholder to get your windows repaired.

The freeholder seems to be saying that you agreed that the freeholder would repair your windows for £2500.

(Or is the freeholder calling this a service charge?)

Prodflop said:

The freehold is threatening to raise service charges to recover the funds. It seems quite mad! 

As you say, that would be mad - and not legal.

If you owe the freeholder money because of a "private deal", the freeholder cannot randomly take the money out of Service Charge funds instead.

If the freeholder tries to do that, you can certainly challenge the unlawful use of Service Charge funds at tribunal.

Prodflop

"This sounds more like an alleged "private deal" between you and the freeholder to get your windows repaired."

It's even more complicated because repairing the windows is listed under the specification of the works contract for the major works last year. However, a clause in that specification states that if any windows are identified as requiring "necessary work" then quotes will be provided before builders carry it out. No quotes were provided and the builders carried out the work without my permission. I had just assumed that this was, therefore, all covered by the section 20 funds already paid (£6,500 three years ago).

There was no private deal or discussion with the freeholder or the then managing agent. Just a bill notifying us that we owe an additional £2,500 for the windows (despite the builders having been paid over one year ago). 

One of the windows repaired is £800. This is particularly problematic as I'd intended to replace the entire window (due to it being poor construction) but now I've got to pay £800 for repairs on a window I'd intended to replace! 

I'm meeting the freeholder soon and will try to establish why he belives I owe money for work I did not consent to. 

Thanks for your advice, it's much appreciated and has made me feel a little more sane.