PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Roof Repairs- Unaware of during purchase. HELP!
Comments
-
Aargh OP this is all sounding like a bit of a mess isn't it - and one that you shouldn't have been caught up in. The seller really should have informed their solicitor, to tell yours, as soon as they knew about this. Allowing that was before exchange, that would have given you the opportunity to renegotiate, or even to pull out - and of course, that's why they didn't take that route! The complication is though that they did tell it to you - so you can't use the argument of "the seller withheld something material from us that might have affected how we would have proceeded" - because they didn't, they told you. I assume you didn't mention it to your solicitor?
I do think - although how you stand on this legally I'm not sure - that eddddy's approach above is not unreasonable. At the very least I think the seller ought to be wiling to cough up for some of this cost, but whether they will might be a different matter. Of course, you will also be conscious that starting your relationship with the freeholder on a dodgy footing might make life uncomfortable. I also think that it would be reasonable that if you did agree to pay a proportion of the costs, to explain that having just moved house, you will need to agree a repayment plan with the other freeholder to cover this, as having not had any information about it prior to moving in, you don't simply have £3k sitting around!
It definitely sounds as though you need to ensure that things are on a more formal footing on this sort of thing in the future.🎉 MORTGAGE FREE (First time!) 30/09/2016 🎉 And now we go again…New mortgage taken 01/09/23 🏡
Balance as at 01/09/23 = £115,000.00 Balance as at 31/12/23 = £112,000.00
Balance as at 31/08/24 = £105,400.00 Balance as at 31/12/24 = £102,500.00SOA CALCULATOR (for DFW newbies): SOA Calculatorshe/her0 -
JessiceHope03 said:It is super confusing.
The seller was only made aware of the cost 2 weeks before we completed (one week before exchange), and this was that there 'could' be works in the future and that only an initial quote had been obtained. Because of this and the fact we already had a reduced sale price (the property needs a lot of internal work), we moved forwards thinking it was something we could participate in ourselves, get our own quotes and then decide a timeframe.
It transpires that the other freeholder then booked and confirmed a builder to come this week on the exact day we completed on the property. So did not consult with us or the seller. We're not assuming the work would be covered by the vendor we're just disputing whether we would need to pay this immediately? We will if we have to.. however I'm just keen to know if anyone has any advise to be honestThank you.I think you need to read the terms of reference of the management company. I'm guessing you were sent this as part of the conveyancing process? You certainly should have a copy now, as you are one of the directors :-)This should make it clear how such decisions are arrived at. Having been in such a situation myself - one of 4 'directors' in a ManCo set up for our converted house (on which note, that is the best setup, so don't worry), this will almost certainly be a 'majority decision', or sometimes the task is 'delegated to one party', but who must then report back with their findings - and then it's a majority decision! It would be very unusual - and very trusting - for one person to be tasked with doing it all, and making the decision.Also see what it says about regular meetings, and extraordinary ones. And what it says about obtaining quotes - it may insist on at least 3 for work in excess of £X, for example.There just cannot be an option here where one person can act unilaterally like this just 'cos they feel like it - the house ain't falling down. The seeming fact that someone is 'appearing' to do this suggests that they have either been delegated to the task (but still going waaaay too far), or the fellow is a control freak (in which case they need calming down).Thanks for clarifying that it was an issue you were 'aware of', and that you are not surprised that some work will be needed at some point. And, of course, it may be that this excitable director has actually done a fantastic job at getting a great roofer at a cracking price...But, you all need to have a meeting to discuss this! Asap.If the fellow can demonstrate, beyond doubt, that they have obtained at least three quotes from different reputable roofers, that it's desirable that the work is carried out before winter, and that the quotes are reasonable, then I'd be inclined to agree to it. But, the terms of ref for the ManCo need nailing down for the future. Including regular contributions to a sinking fund.If this is clearly a poor decision by this 'director', and he's gone beyond his remit, you can just say 'non'. There is no obligation on you to agree to a decision that goes against the ToRef. He then has to pick up the pieces, and that will teach him a lesson.0 -
I'm one of 4 share of freeholders. Even though we are all long-standing co-freeholders (20+ years) and there is no bad blood or mistrust between any of us we put everything through a S20 procedure (everything, that is, where the likely cost will be £250 or more per freeholder, and emergencies needing instant action wouldn't need S20). It just makes everything clearer, we all know where we stand, and we all have an opportunity to object or nominate contractors, etc. Plus, it means all the decision-making is properly documented and can be shown to be so to, eg. future buyers or a court.
OP, if the freeholders in your new home didn't go through the S20, then neither the previous owners or you can be liable to pay any more than £250 (and it should be the previous owners paying this). However, to refuse to chip in might mean you start out on the wrong foot with your new co-freeholders. In your place I would check with the solicitor whether any of the £3K can be recovered from your vendor, but if not, I would pay up but only on condition that all future works go through the S20 procedure, and on the understanding that if they don't my contribution to any future work would be restricted to £250. I'd put that in writing and make sure all other co-freeholders had a copy. I also believe - though am not 100% sure - that they are legally obliged to do this (i.e. my understanding is that S20 is not optional) so you might check this and if I'm correct you can advise them of that.1 -
Tactically I disagree with a lot of what is being said. But not because it is legally incorrect about what leaseholders can or cannot insist on or take to tribunal. And formality and good record keeping has its place. All accepted. And you have a leaseholder hat. And you have a share of freeholder voting hat.
For 3k - absent a S20 or a defined cost communicated to them (evidenced) - the seller declaration is likely fine until you legally challenge it successfully - itself an act costing a lot more than 3k. Following that up is a dead end in my view. You can explore as you choose. Ask seller for a contribution. But don't be surprised if they decline. And that may well be that.
My thread disagreement is based on 3 or 4 of you in a smaller shared structure. You are unlikely to employ an external managing agent.
And so everything and anything that needs to happen has to be done by the subset of you that are not overseas (lock up and leave), too old, too busy, too ill etc. Or become monumentally fed up with each other and on the cusp of a notifiable neighbour dispute. And down tools saying let awkward fred bloody do it then if he's so sure about due process and micro managing what is happening without taking part or doing the work.
The available people to arrange / do / be in for actual work MIGHT be all 4 four of you. Or it might not. Tread softly. Meet. Find out.
If one person (controlling in demeanour and less than consultative or not) is mostly doing it. Then it is often unwise to throw it in their face and have them down tools and stump off angry and unnappreciated.
Saying off you go newbie - oh and take your making things more difficult and prolonged to do ideas - and go and do ALL that yourself every time. See how you like it. Which is a valid and reasonable response in the situation of new share of freeholder showing up and behaving as though they were a leaseholder only. And just being difficult. And creating extra work. Without stepping up to take some of it on. Finding one roofer to show up can be fun. Insisting on three might qualify for stand up comedy in some places.
The objective is fixing the roof. Not beautiful record keeping.
There are 4 of you. Not 40 or 100. Meet. Decide. Minute/circulate. Delegate. Act. Share it around. If most of you want full, formal, correct format S20s, 3 quotes etc. etc. Fine - you need to do you. If you live with less formality - again - your collective - your rules.
If you push the full legal approaches used on large sites - they may feel that they have been putting the effort in for however long and this is now unappreciated and there is no trust - so with respect you can all !!!!!! off. And it's your turn to do it for a year or two.
There is no "them".
There is only the few of *you* who have shares of freehold
So you have to get along to be able to make decisions. According to the freehold agreement. Which may be a LTD company with articles. Which will say how voting works. With an even number - this can become fraught depending upon what it says.
So you *can* at first meeting insist on 3 quotes/Section 20 and threaten paying only £250. You can create that "first impression" if you like.
And then wait for the next thing you notice/to come up - living as 1 of 4 thereafter.
I would not recommend doing so.
But you need to do you.
Now if over a few items it proves to be the case that there is a director who isn't good at it - but who likes doing things their own way and without help or discussion. Then you may have to dig out the bigger sticks to rein them back in
0 -
I think you need to read the terms of reference of the management company. I'm guessing you were sent this as part of the conveyancing process? You certainly should have a copy now, as you are one of the directors :-)This should make it clear how such decisions are arrived at. Having been in such a situation myself - one of 4 'directors' in a ManCo set up for our converted house (on which note, that is the best setup, so don't worry), this will almost certainly be a 'majority decision', or sometimes the task is 'delegated to one party', but who must then report back with their findings - and then it's a majority decision! It would be very unusual - and very trusting - for one person to be tasked with doing it all, and making the decision.
What you are saying above isn't really relevant to the OP's current question.- The OP's lease gives the OP rights.
- Leasehold legislation gives the OP further rights.
- The OP's lease puts responsibilities on the freeholder.
- Leasehold legislation puts further responsibilities on the freeholder.
A majority vote by directors cannot override those rights and responsibilities.
Put more simply, the directors cannot say "We've voted by a majority decision to break the law. So now we are allowed to break the law."
Based on what the OP has said, the law says that the OP probably doesn't have to pay the £3k. A majority vote cannot override the law.
But the real issue here is a moral one. It seems like the freeholder has messed up.- Should the OP take pity on the freeholder and pay them £3k (to keep neighbourly relations good)?
- Or should the OP say - "You've messed up. I'm not going to bail you out by paying you £3k" (and possibly sour neighbourly relations)?
- Or should the OP aim for some kind of compromise?
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.3K Spending & Discounts
- 240.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.6K Life & Family
- 253.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards