Freeholder needs advice on structural issues

apda

Hi everyone.

I am a freeholder of a flat, one of 8 flats, in an old building that was a hotel built sometime over 100 years ago and converted in the 70's. I am the only owner occupier, a top floor flat, there are two flats on each floor. I believe that there are 7 other freeholders, I have talked to 4 of them. The couple who own flat 6 also run the freehold through a rtmo. Of this couple the woman runs the admin and the bloke is the one who handles other issues. They own a number of properties in the area and have not inconsiderable experience.

There are two structural issues, at some point in the past decades the front of the building was pebble dashed and this has blown causing water ingress from my front wall. At present the only flat affected is mine. I first noticed the issue in January and reported this to the rtmo. I have not received a useful response. I have approached a few roofing and/or brickwork companies for a quote but every one has not bothered to actually do one. Basically I am asked the situation and I explain I am one of several freeholders and they loose interest in quoting. Quite obviously because they expect getting paid will be a problem. Advice I have received is that a rough estimate for stripping the render and fixing whatever caused it to be applied in the first place is £40-50k and that for such an expensive job we will need to appoint one person to organise everything. Sadly the rtmo has simply ignored my requests to organise anything. I have asked them to make the other freeholders aware of the issue in the biannual statement we get but I have had no response. I have talked to the freeholder of the flat below mine and she is not inclined to do anything. The owner two below mine is desperate to sell, he put the leasehold on the market 6 months ago for 120k and has changed that to the freehold for 100k. (flats in this area have lost about a third of their value over the last two years, which doesn't bother me as I'll live here for another 15 years I expect). The other freeholder I know owns the other top floor flat and is seemingly unwilling to have anything done, more on that when I explain the other structural issue.

Which is that there are two chimney stacks that are failing (if that's the right word) and letting in water to the two top floor flats, both stacks are at the bottom of pitched roof slopes. This is an issue that was first brought to the attention of the rtmo in spring 2024. We got one quote done in early 2025 but this roofer also claimed that work needed doing on part of the buildings roof that is fine. I'm not sure why, he seemed like a decent chap. Part of the roof over both top floor flats is flat (two pitched roofs and a section of flat) and he quoted to fix flat roof when there is no obvious issue. At any rate when I talked to the male part of the rtmo he said he wouldn't use this roofer anyway as the guy had done some work for him on another property that was a poor job. So I set out to get quotes to fix the chimney stacks. There is no access to the roof from my loft but from the other top floor flat loft one can get out onto the flat roof. The owner of this other top floor flat (which has been vacant since mid December 2025) arranged for a person to let me into the flat with a roofer early this year and this roofer provided a quote to fix the chimney stack issues. Obviously we need at least one other quote but the flat owner has been unwilling to allow me access. In April I had two roofers booked to check the job and the guy was supposed to mail me keys. A day before the first roofer was coming the keys had still not arrived and when I contacted the flat owner about this he said he had not posted them. Obviously I had to cancel both roofers and since then the owner has ignored me when I approach him about getting the problem sorted. I also had a roofer turn up to quote who said using a drone was good enough, I talked to him at the front door and he asked questions about the freeholders and if we had money to pay for the work. I was honest and said that the funds had not been collected yet and he left without using the drone.

So, as I am being ignored by everybody, including the freeholder who runs the rtmo, what is my best course of action?

gm0

Detailed post. Information about the legal structure of your rtmo will to some extent influence the options that could bear fruit (or not).

The way I tend to see these things is more human nature and incentives based than "legal rights" based. Others can pitch in on other angles I am sure.

There are a couple of people currently doing something (though not necessarily much or enough - to run this rtmo of whatever legal form) on behalf of the freeholders collectively.

This rtmo if it has an identity i.e. a ltd company legal form has directors and members/owner shares and a voting protocol defined in its articles or appendix to template. (Companies house if you don't have it from conveyancing).

These are the legal processes which can and should be used to "direct" the actions of the freehold company. And which you will need to try and use as a less awkward approach before litigating.

Freehold voting governance can be problematic if outvoted of course. In which case you may need to switch hats to "leaseholder who has a breach of their lease in terms of freeholder obligations". Letter before action etc. Forcing a go around on the issue.

Being painful in a governance sense doesn't endear with current directors who can just quit if they want. Leaving a mess. Which requires a meeting and election of new. More delay.

I assume you ALSO have a lease with rights and obligations which you can use re communal structure and its maintenance. Alongside a "voting freeholder" hat.

So if there are both obligations (and recharge rights) for the freehold rtmo to fix communal structure and your use of your demised leased flat is now impaired. Then you can start a leaseholder dispute process to attempt to force action on the freeholder (which is the communal rtmo on behalf of, via its directors, governed by its voting system of which you are separately also part).

I believe there are usually two paths. Engaging more directly. In a friendly - I am frustrated - but here we are. So as a last opportunity - the "I prefer the I am here to help US get this sorted TOGETHER and sourced to a contractor - a so something of an ultimatum tea and biscuits discussion with the people who are involved in running the thing - not other sleeping partner freehold voters (who may well need to be consulted about major works but that's a problem for step 2).

This is the join the board continue to work the issue with the rtmo board route. Some distress but you are more engaged in generating momentum.

The second alternative is to keep your freeholder vote in your pocket until called upon to vote at some later point and go the "leaseholder with a lawyer" route pushing enforcement action onto the freehold interest (and rtmo)

This kind of dispute generates legal consultations at £££ by the freehold interest directors of rtmo to underpin a lay opinion on postion. Who will probably need to do that to manage personal risk or their Public Indemnity insurance if carried). This likely at a cost is then often recharged to leaseholders and fixes no walls or chimneys. So it is waste. Bad for neighbour relations - and some cost will flow back your way. But sometimes to get people out of a funk of not wanting to face problems or spend money on necessary to the community things - it is necessary to walk them up the hill towards legal dispute costs.

A dispute cost looming and legal waste possibly appearing and flowing to the others will provide an incentive.
Active disputes existing (as barrier to lease sale) like wise. You make no new friends.

You need a coalition of aligned interested lease and freehold voters so far as you can build one so the balance of incentives is aligned.

There is a risk in these situations where there is someone trying to get something done which generates large bills and Section 20 notices. That sleeping directors will perceive this as trouble making and not be up for doing it. And quit inconveniently. While being hostile to the election of the troublemaker as a replacement. It there is not really any sinking fund or assets in the rtmo then there is a risk of ending up with a group of bald men arguing over a broken comb. Nothing much has happened. Money has been wasted. No further forward.

Hence my preference for the first of the two approaches. Effort intensive though it is. Adding some governance and formal comms stuff to your existing "getting quotes for work" steps. Work that should be "joint" as board but shared across the 2-3.

apda

Thank you for the detailed response. I will read a third time and digest it properly!

gm0

1. Join the board. Persuade of necessity of collective action (friendly persuasion and implied threat posed by lease breach lawsuit and related dispute and expense i.e. 2 is worse. But you are currently helping not litigating. Some people running rtmo may drop out if they dislike the effort/process. But do things by the book - company articles if there is one. Leaseholder notices. Correct formal notices for works and costs. Act properly in role (freehold rtmo). Informality opens up challenge options for freeholders who don't like the works/costs or being forced. More work for you - but to get to the outcome step by step.
   
2. Leasehold dispute and potential lawsuit against freehold interest for breach on maintenance of communal. Understand current volunteer rtmo officials step aside not wanting the hassle and leave a stand off and nobody wanting to step in (across the 8) or willing to vote you in. Or money is wasted on lawyer support (both sides). Then what?
   
   Resolving intransigent about access disputes with lessees for contractors is another separate layer when you get that far.
   
   This is why 1 is preferred

poseidon1

I suspect what will emerge is a lack of appetite by the other freehold/leaseholders to contribute to the £40 - £50k spend on the blown render issue with more capital costs to come for fixing the wayward chimney stacks. A proper assement of the buildings structure could reveal other issues.

Weigh these costs against what seems to be steeply declining market values for the flats themselves, and one can readily imaging some of the cash strapped leaseholders taking the line of least resistance and 'voting" to do nothing.

Leaseholders of the converted building I live in, had the situation where the external freeholder was going to impose on us a cowboy builder to do essential capital works including repointing, new roof and a similarly cracked/ leaning chimney stack.

To avoid having to contend with slapdash remedial work, we as Leaseholders excercised our right to buy the freehold and formed a company to do so. A few years thereafter we then embarked on a significant program of capital works on the building topping £120k split between 4 leaseholders.

The different in our case is we were all on the same page with regard to the necessity for the works including one who was renting out his flat.

Some remortgaged to pay for their share, I came out of retirement and did 6 months employment to raise my contribution. However, this is a London converted building, so the remedial works at the time ( 2017) did add value which made it even easier to stomach the high costs.

In the OP's case with the flats sitting at a modest £100k in value ( and maybe declining), not doing the work will of course lessen the value of the properties overtime in addition to market forces already weighing against them.

His appeal to his co leaseholders is failing to get the works done ASAP, will depreciate the homes even faster and for those who wish to eventually move, their flats could become completely unsaleable.

One would hope an appeal to them on this basis would elicit a rational response, but OP says he is the only owner occupier which suggests the others are only BTL investors. Such investors may not necessarily see the appeal of investing more money in a depreciating asset.