Freeholder locked cellar where the meters are - is this allowed?

techno12

Hi

I own a flat in a Victorian conversion, and after an asbestos report 6 months ago the freeholder has locked the door to the cellar. All the meters and water stopcocks are down there.

I believe this may be unlawful? (Gas Safety regs 1998)

Nobody can read their meters, and what happens if there's a gas or water leak?

The asbestos has always been there (there's a door with a large "warning" sign on it, but we've all gone down there over the decades to read the meters, so nothing has changed, it's just the fact that it's now panic mode due to the report).

The assumption was that the freeholder would make it safe, but tonight we've received letters asking us to get smart meters.
I have one, it has never worked as it is a cellar and no mobile signal down there, and we need access anyway to turn off the gas/water.

Any advice? There's 11 flats in the building, we have a RTM company etc, but this has dragged on for 6 months now and it looks like the freeholder is trying to avoid sorting it out. The problem would disappear if the door was left unlocked like it used to be (I'll take my chances)

Murphybear

I had a similar problem a few years ago.  I contacted the council and they sent someone out to read him the riot act.  

propertyrental

Why is the freeholder managing the building if there is a RTM company?

techno12

I think it's because we want him to pay for its removal, as it's a problem he created in the 70s when doing the conversion by not sorting it then.

Under the RTM we normally pay for everything (annual service charge nearly £2k as it's an old property with 'issues').
 
If I could get a key I'd be fine, but the RTM keyholder says that is not possible (though I'm going to ask again). A bit clown world as this has now created a huge issue - it's the same level of asbestos down there as ever nothing has changed.
Of course we want it removing or made safe in an ideal world, but not at the cost of £1000s to each of us - tho I have no idea of the costs involved. I assume it's not cheap as I was told the freeholder has had several quotes. I paid enough to extend the lease he could use some of that

I think that's the situation anyway, the RTM people have been quiet for months.

Mark_d

My understanding that the work for the asbestos to be removed, or for the stopcocks to be relocated etc. work need to be paid for by the leaseholders.  If you force the issue, which I believe would be the right thing to do, then yes it will cost.

Whilst the asbestos is there and the cellar is locked, there are gas/waster safety issues.  You would also have problems if you try to sell your property.  In my opinion there's no way of getting around needed to pay to get the work done.

eddddy

techno12 said:

I think it's because we want him to pay for its removal, as it's a problem he created in the 70s when doing the conversion by not sorting it then.

I know this isn't your main question - but it's very, very unlikely that you have any legal basis for getting the freeholder to pay for this.

Your leases almost certainly say that the freeholder (so now the RTM company) is responsible for doing the work, but the cost has to be shared amongst the leaseholders.


So when you bought your lease, that's what you were agreeing to.

(The legal position would be: if you didn't like those terms, you shouldn't have bought the lease.)

anselld

As above, the rtm should manage the building including keys, access and the asbestos issue. 

The Freeholder should not be interfering.  If the Freeholder is really liable for the remediation then the rtm should be enforcing that, however that seems very unlikely.  Much more likely that the rtm should address the asbestos under the service charge.
  Removal is not always the best option so professional advice should be taken on how best to manage safely whilst preserving access.

techno12

Thanks for the replies - I'm not involved with the RTM and will go with the flow but I just want this to be sorted as it's dragged on for ages.

I did just read that the RTM does not cover "non-residential parts" of a building, so maybe he does have the right to take control.

Hopefully now that we all received the hand delivered "get smart meters" letters last night things will start moving.

Merlin139

I worked in a shop that was full of Asbestos. We were told in in the walls and safe as long as its not disturbed. Basically don't stick your head in a gap in the wall. 

If access has been blocked because its dangerous then the owner should have it removed at their expense.

I would ask the Freeholder if its dangerous down there how exactly will new Smart Meters be installed? Who would pay for damage if you needed to turn off your water due to a leak.

As has been said contact your local council and see what they can do.

eddddy

techno12 said:

I did just read that the RTM does not cover "non-residential parts" of a building, so maybe he does have the right to take control.

Again, this is going off on a tangent - but "non-residential" means, for example, shops, offices, cafes, etc which might be in the building.

In terms of the leases, the meter room is more likely to be a "common area" (like the communal hallway, communal stairs, etc).


So maybe the RTM company should be responsible for the locking the door, rather than the freeholder. But, unless they have people with specialist knowledge, then perhaps they'd need to take professional advice about controlling access (e.g. whether they should keep the door locked, etc) - to avoid the risk of negligence claims, Health and Safety breaches, etc.

35har1old

eddddy said:

techno12 said:

I did just read that the RTM does not cover "non-residential parts" of a building, so maybe he does have the right to take control.

Again, this is going off on a tangent - but "non-residential" means, for example, shops, offices, cafes, etc which might be in the building.

In terms of the leases, the meter room is more likely to be a "common area" (like the communal hallway, communal stairs, etc).


So maybe the RTM company should be responsible for the locking the door, rather than the freeholder. But, unless they have people with specialist knowledge, then perhaps they'd need to take professional advice about controlling access (e.g. whether they should keep the door locked, etc) - to avoid the risk of negligence claims, Health and Safety breaches, etc.

If the companies associated with the meters had knowledge of the presence of asbestos it is  unlikely that they would read the meters