Liability for intercom system

WantedMe

I inherited my current flat after being a carer for 7 years for a parent with dementia. 

When mum bought the flat it had just been built its a private Sheltered Housing build and was outfitted with a careline link, intercom system connected to the fire alarm , front dooor.

Now, its only been 25 years and the Service guys are saying it needs replacing they have a large chunk of change in reserve from the leaseholders from accrued service charge fees going into a reserve fund.

Only issue is apparently its going to cost upward of £140K to replace. 

Another issue is the service company knew about the fact its getting more and more difficult to get parts for the existing system for at least 5 years.

So, questions.

1. Is £140k  roughly accurate.

2. Is the Freehold owner responsible, as it was an existing feature of the property and sold as such.

3. Can anything be done about the fact the service company did nothing for so long?

Sorry for so many questions, can't wait to hear any helpful advice.

Thank you

HampshireH

Without knowing how big the scheme is and how many flats it will be difficult to say.

You'll need them to comply with s.20 process and they should be providing 3 quotes and you should be given the opportunity to recommend companies for them to ask for quotes from.

From experience this sound very expensive but that will be totally dependent on what is required 

Example how many flats, how many lifts, how many communal rooms requiring pull cords/intercoms. What is being offered tablet devices for each flat or just pull cords and door entry?

Does it connect to an outside response centre (this should already be in place if so) are they upgrading the cabling?

So many questions to be asking them.

I would suggest asking them for a full specification of works and ask why they haven't forecast their sinking fund to factor this in.

The freeholder will be responsible to replace. The leaseholders will be responsible to pay as per their lease.

They will have been maintaining it up to now. A lot of the older care alarms are obsolete and parts are no longer able to be sourced. It's a common problem

WantedMe

Just under 50 flats in the building.

WantedMe

Yes it does connect to Care Line which is the current provider. Theres also a fob system where you can call for help and a unit attached to the wall (in the residents flat) that has a speaker that's part of the system.

HampshireH

Ask them for the spec so you can see what their intending to upgrade it with

gm0

Very common problem. All family members have had this problem at flats between 15-25 years old.  They don't last forever.  

With gate intercoms (gated developments) there is often external wiring to degrade or be damaged as well as old electronics. Which can make the job monstrous if defunct old wire is buried under something that then needs redoing as well to fix/relay it.  Car park block paving or tarmac etc.   Cost cost cost. And scope explodes.  If we dig up the grounds and relay - surely the ducting should go in for EV chargers.  Or maybe the cabling as well.  And so on.  But that would be an improvement - not repair - different responsibilities and decision making.  Gets messy fast between what is sensible (facts on the ground) and what is sensible - legal and lease recharge mechanics . 

The technology for video links/door+gate cams was deeply imperfect back then and arguably still is now (once covered in rain).  Some were linked to "the satellite telly" system in now obsolete ways that made sense a long time ago - but a lot less so now or for the target audience.    Anything coax and sky satellite linked as example.

Some people now like "mobile phone" alert systems. As an alternative to on the wall video entry phone button fixed handsets.  But somebody (probably the managing agent for an extra fee each year will then need to register/de-register residents with access rights as they come and go.  And support elderly residents who struggle with it to some level.  People without a smart phone still just about exist 80s/90s - my mum calls and texts happily on her feature phone but her swipy smart phone is a deep and enduring mystery to her to get it to do tricks - with her less than mobile fingers.  

So community context dependent - it's not the slam dunk it appears.  The old system didn't have any admin.  Fix on fail. Call outs.  Press button. Gate opens. Communal door opens.  New system - now has a list of users and an app which does things via the internet and has 40 new and exciting extra failure modes.  I look forward to being alive in 25 years time when these systems reach the same age as the one complained of.

For all that any version of it installed by a builder 20-30 years ago will quite likely be from a long gone vendor or obsolete product range by now.  And unserviceable economically due to parts unavailability.  Some local service engineer who knows the local estates may have hoovered up some ebay spares to keep that local call out business going. But that dries up eventually as well.  Eventually the freeholder has to either replace it.  Or persuade EVERYONE that replacing it is the wrong thing to do. Which is harder than replacing it.  So the agent gets the job of configuring the project within the parameters of 100% rechargeable to leases. 

To other comments - unless the lease specifies a specific levy for a sinking fund then this is fairly arbitrary - to budget, medium term maintenance - redecorating schedules and such like.  Sites build one into their budget.  Sometimes from the start - sometimes from year 10 or so.   

Recently many sites have "raided" their sinking fund to deal with events that happened - a retaining wall; tree surgery. The Ukraine war spike - in year - on communal energy costs doing a 2x/3x not a 5% uplift causing a deficit.   The idea that sinking funds are all earmarked to specific activities for years ahead and can be ticked off as such - is for the birds.  So we are now a bit short. So put up the levy, or delay decorating 1-2 years - extend maintenance cycle.   With an external freeholder this sort of discussion around presentation of an annual budget and service charge is very common with the agent disappointing the residents.  So much cost.  So little progress.  Who then "vote" (give a view) for not increasing the service charge but instead sliding some maintenance to the right.  With share of freehold a couple of residents can take the role of the freeholder as directors of the company.  And the dance of "please spend nothing and don't put up the charge" - "why has nothing been done" can continue entirely as before.  

Leaseholders pay "at the time" (later - sometimes later is now - as here). Or they save up.   

Inadequate leaseholder levies for sinking funds lead to one off bills later.  Later owners resent former owners for the cashflow "holiday" they took.  New build purchasers (who likely paid a premium or resale like for like) see it differently again - just paid a premium - not my job (yet) to save up for year 50-60.  That comes later.  All that matters in the end is "state of the place" and "what's in the pot to keep it up" - at a given current level of charge.  It meets the highest priority liabilities or it doesn't.  Relitigating what "should have happened" 15 years, 3 agents and 27 residents ago - doesn't get you very far.  And is entirely pointless unless the sums of money in dispute and at stake are so enormous and can carry the overheads of legal support.  People vent at AGMs.  And then it still is what it is. Just we all lost an hour of our lives we won't get back.

Freeholder obligations

If it was part of the spec as new.  Then the freeholder has an obligation to repair or replace as close to like for like as they can.  With a lift or fire alarm this is clear cut and unarguable. With other items the definitions get blurred.  In general for repair/like for like replacement (modernisation accepted) - they can recharge all leaseholders in proportions according to the lease terms.  Just like the roof, the lift, the communal door, the gate, the car park surface.   

The way the project is procured by a freeholder appointed managing agent may be well or poorly organised.   And the value for money in such captive niche markets is often poor.    And in some parts of the country there may not be three competitors itching for the job locally - so deterrent pricing or not enough quotes may be encountered.  The part of a person admin person at the managing agent may well never have done this before, lack all technical insight or project management skill and not be contracted by the freeholder to project manage the install anyway. Just let the contract to a trader and let them have at it.  As with all small jobs.

Sometimes (as with external wiring buried under car parks say - changing the nature of the system (a different scope of project may be the sensible way forward.  But this requires consultation and agreement.  If it radically diverges from like for like.  And people who would prefer nothing may stall or sabotage such a process. Leaving the freeholder with a clear incentive to do what they have to do, without discussion and consensus building of all leaseholder residents.   An approach which won't please everyone.  Neither will most solutions - even if you go the long way around.  (Share of Freeholds have the same issue - they need to "act" at some point.  Leaseholders who rely on it (broken thing) can start to push for action.  Their SOF decision making can be simple majority.  And the majority may decide not to spend money on it.  The dissenting minority will still have their lease and original specification to use to attempt to litigate or otherwise still press for action if they want to take it that far.