Service charge for communal Flora areas

silvercar

Read your most recent tenancy agreement. Does it mention that charges can be introduced? If not, I would ask the HA where the requirement to contribute comes from.

Trout69

BarelySentientAI said:

eddddy said:

40 houses in the street, so each house should be paying 1/40th = £100

Not true.  HA expense should not be covered by non-HA property owners unless there was a covenant in the sale requiring contribution.

eddddy said:

If other houses aren't paying (for whatever reason), it shouldn't mean that your mum has to pay more to cover the shortfall.

If the other eligible houses aren't paying, this is true.  If houses that don't have any obligation don't pay, well they shouldn't have been anyway.

This is a shared road between private ownership and HA rental properties - the communal areas are not restricted. There are 2 car parks, grass verges and what we have always called a 'mound' which is a basically just that, a mound of earth covered in prickly brushes to help bridge the slope of the landscape.

These aren't HA expenses these are part of the general landscape of the street. This is a picture of the 'Mound'. Every house in this image is now privately owned. Is this a public greenery that should be maintained by the council or should the maintenance of this be paid for by only the council tenants?

As pjs493 mentioned - 

When I visited recently I noticed that a lot more landscaping was in place than previously such as attractive features, flower beds and a lovely large stone carved with the name of the estate as one enters it from the main road. It certainly looks more appealing than it did 30 years ago. None of them have been charged for any of this improvement work. I suspect the council just has the extra money to improve the area. 

Same here. I have emailed the HA and I'll post the reply after this.

Trout69

eddddy said:

Just to emphasize, a Service Charge will almost always be a percentage (or fraction) of the the actual amount spent by the HA.

So, for a simple example, the calculation might be:

Cost of Gardeners and plants: £3700
Admin costs: £300
--------------------------------
Total cost : £4000

40 houses in the street, so each house should be paying 1/40th = £100

(But typically, you pay an estimated amount during the year, and it's adjusted at the end of the year.)


So if it's determined that your mum has to pay a service charge, you can check that it's being calculated correctly and fairly.

If other houses aren't paying (for whatever reason), it shouldn't mean that your mum has to pay more to cover the shortfall.

So who pays the rest if only the HA houses pay the service charge?

BarelySentientAI

Trout69 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

eddddy said:

40 houses in the street, so each house should be paying 1/40th = £100

Not true.  HA expense should not be covered by non-HA property owners unless there was a covenant in the sale requiring contribution.

eddddy said:

If other houses aren't paying (for whatever reason), it shouldn't mean that your mum has to pay more to cover the shortfall.

If the other eligible houses aren't paying, this is true.  If houses that don't have any obligation don't pay, well they shouldn't have been anyway.

This is a shared road between private ownership and HA rental properties - the communal areas are not restricted. There are 2 car parks, grass verges and what we have always called a 'mound' which is a basically just that, a mound of earth covered in prickly brushes to help bridge the slope of the landscape.

These aren't HA expenses these are part of the general landscape of the street. This is a picture of the 'Mound'. Every house in this image is now privately owned. Is this a public greenery that should be maintained by the council or should the maintenance of this be paid for by only the council tenants?

How do you know they are not HA expenses?  You've asked the right question later in your post - is this truly public land, or is it actually HA land that everyone can access.

I've been involved with both, and they look no different when you are stood in the street.

If it is public land, then that should be maintained by the council.  If it is actually land to be maintained by the HA, then the HA should pay.

eddddy

Trout69 said:

eddddy said:

Just to emphasize, a Service Charge will almost always be a percentage (or fraction) of the the actual amount spent by the HA.

So, for a simple example, the calculation might be:

Cost of Gardeners and plants: £3700
Admin costs: £300
--------------------------------
Total cost : £4000

40 houses in the street, so each house should be paying 1/40th = £100

(But typically, you pay an estimated amount during the year, and it's adjusted at the end of the year.)


So if it's determined that your mum has to pay a service charge, you can check that it's being calculated correctly and fairly.

If other houses aren't paying (for whatever reason), it shouldn't mean that your mum has to pay more to cover the shortfall.

So who pays the rest if only the HA houses pay the service charge?

Based on what the OP has said - it's likely to be whoever owns the land that pays the rest. Originally, that would have been the council - but they might (or might not) have handed it over to the housing association.


Taking a step back, it's likely the history was like this:

• The council owned a housing estate of 40 houses (which they rented to tenants)

• The estate included a 'mound and grass verges' for use by the residents of the 40 houses (i.e. they were not intended as spaces for use by the general public)

• When they were all rented council houses, the council covered the cost of maintaining the 'mound and grass verges' for the benefit of the residents of the 40 houses.

• But as the council sold off the houses - each house owner 'should have' become responsible for 1/40th of the cost of maintaining the 'mound and grass verges' - by signing a deed.

• But maybe the council were a bit sloppy, and didn't get each buyer to sign a deed - so the council should really be responsible for all the 1/40ths that they failed to get deeds signed for.

(At some point, the council transferred ownership and/or their responsibilities to a Housing Association - but the Housing Association should have continued the same policy.)

eddddy

BarelySentientAI said:

eddddy said:

40 houses in the street, so each house should be paying 1/40th = £100

Not true.  HA expense should not be covered by non-HA property owners unless there was a covenant in the sale requiring contribution.

  I'm not sure why you're saying "not true". You seem to be agreeing with me:

eddddy said:

FWIW, these days, when a council house is sold, the council would ensure that the buyer signs a deed agreeing to pay a service charge (for maintenance of communal areas etc).

But some people say that in the early days, when council houses were sold, the councils weren't savvy enough to get a deed signed.

So it could even be that some house owners pay a service charge and others don't. But even then, those that pay a service charge should only really pay 1/40th of the costs.

BarelySentientAI

eddddy said:

BarelySentientAI said:

eddddy said:

40 houses in the street, so each house should be paying 1/40th = £100

Not true.  HA expense should not be covered by non-HA property owners unless there was a covenant in the sale requiring contribution.

  I'm not sure why you're saying "not true". You seem to be agreeing with me:

eddddy said:

FWIW, these days, when a council house is sold, the council would ensure that the buyer signs a deed agreeing to pay a service charge (for maintenance of communal areas etc).

But some people say that in the early days, when council houses were sold, the councils weren't savvy enough to get a deed signed.

So it could even be that some house owners pay a service charge and others don't. But even then, those that pay a service charge should only really pay 1/40th of the costs.

Because I don't think it should be 1/40.

It should be 1/(number of houses that actually have to contribute).

I don't agree (yet) with the assertion that all of the houses are liable.