Yes I am but without using the term RTM. I'm curious as to how others have achieved the same result in that due to the wording of their Leases in that they can carry out the work/repairs, then they managed to negate the RTM. They literally formed their own Co. & took it from there. From what I can gather they've gotten away with it too. I only wish I could remember where I saw this as I'd happily post this up. Thing is have you ever heard of this, as it appears those on this site are actually more clued up than solicitors. Thanks for responding.

Just picking up on the thread here. As a consumer surely you still have the statutory rights of 28 days cancellation of a contract or is it the 14 day cooling off period? You could site the water problem as well as the invasion of privacy in that you were not given 48 Hrs Notice. It's quite simple, no I wouldn't be paying anything, I'd site the above & leave. If any money has been paid over then I'd look in to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Within this act is a section on paying money when threatened, in that this will void the contract. Hope this helps.

Here's a general query in relation to this thread. What would be the situation if all the Leaseholders clubbed together by forming their own Ltd Co. registered as not for profit. Then write to the likes of these Management Co's stating "we have no need of your services". Surely with both sides being Co's, could you then charge the otherside for all correspondence out to them...? It would be a bit like putting the balance back in - charges like for like? Any thoughts anyone.

Try this angle. Give them 7 days with which to respond all Q's & queries raised to date, when at the end of 7 days you've had no response you will have created Estopple by Acquiescence, in other words you've stopped them dead. By non action on their part is the acquiescence to their own Estopple. Co's like these have no actual concept of law & will not understand what has happened which is where, why & how you write back with the 2nd letter stating you've now Estoplled yourselves. Other forums out there have used this aspect of law with great success. This is old law but still legal & valid. There is also a Maxim for this too unfortunately I can only remember the opening part being "that which is unrebutted..." Can anyone else on here fill in the rest of it? There are some very dirty Freeholders/Managing Agents out there, all they want is your money without ever explaining what it is for. As they tend to be Co's you can always make other waves as all correspondence is classed as ex oficio (from the office) & the Fraud Act 2006 now brings in all Managers as well as Directors. Look under Abuse of Position. Hope this helps.

This would appear to be a landmine ready to go off. Without your signature nothing can happen what you have here is a Tort of Deceit. The timeclock doesn't start running until it is discovered. I refer you to:Limitation Act 1980 s32 (1)(a) the time clock in which to sue does not start running until the claimant discovers the deceit or could with reasonable diligence discovered it. Context: You bought in goodfaith, that has been renaded on as a result you are experiencing loss. The harm is to you in buying the property, the injury really & truely maybe how its effected your health...? The loss is the value of the property in that you have the right to a home life? 1. Gmac as far as I can remember where classed as 'adverse lenders' - people with poor credit hence not using a normal high street lender. 2. To pass the Mortgage to another lender without consultation begs the Q. so who is the contract with? Is there a contract? 3. The acting solicitor... Surely this would be a 'conflict of interest' in that they represented both parties (Mortgage & sale) then changed the Lender? Were they aware - they must have been. This comes across as total negilience, as it appears that the solicitor has not acted in your interests. Therefore in whose interest has he been acting? 4. It's of no surprise as to the builders going in to liquidation. Try & find out who the liquidators are - ring the Insolvency Office. Also try & get online to see if you can track down the Directors of the Dissolved Co. Check all the sites not just Co's Hse or say Dunn & Bradstreet. Your objective here is is to see if their is a papertrail that may link in both the solicitors & the developer, via a partner or even an associate. This may then create a case for Malpratice. 5. With regards to the developer by sifting through the sites try & identify home address's - reason being you may be able to levy a Unilateral Notice against their properties. I put this Q. out to the rest of the site too as to the facts as I'm only surmising on this point. 5.

Just a thought here... We're still talking about money here though aren't we? Therefore look into any & all relevant facts surrounding money rules/regs & laws. The Fraud Act 2006 may be of assistance in that you've identified a papertrail regarding the money, also there is a question mark here as to how the money, has been either or both spent/used. Hope this helps.

Yes I know, but people like me who are new are reading these threads all the same. So if someone leaves some new but appropiate and relevant - why not? Has this caused offence?

Just a thought here. I know with myself I rang the Land Registry who in turn gave me the name of the Freeholder as listed with them. You may be able to argue a case here in that, you are not refusing to pay but so as to avoid financial hardship it's easier to pay via installments. This one is a long shot... Human Rights Act (Nov) 1998 - Article 8. You do have the right to a home and private life in that within the Lease there may be the term "to peaceably hold & enjoy". It's not like you've point blank refused to pay is it?

Yes I am as I am new to the site. I'm looking to see if there are any threads aimed at those who have cleared their Mortgages & bought their Leases outright. The reason being that for some they may have had their original contract with the first Freeholder, then that is say sold on. Along comes other Freeholders & that it seems is where the problem lies. Original Freeholders it appears only charged for Ground Rent (low rent) and Building Insurance, none of which was a licence to print. I'm looking to see who else has faced or is facing Repossession due to a bent Freeholder even though they have lived there for more 12 Yrs.

An RTM Co. is a good idea. Bear in mind that any talk of the Freeholder being on the board of Directors can be easily negated - you vote him at the 1st meeting on a no confidence vote. This is worse for him on a business level as this will affect those who he does business with. You could also contact the Insolvency Office in that he's abused his position. they have a list for bent Directors too. This creates a paper trail at source, therefore anything untoward happens you've already laid the game plan. Hope this helps Also look in to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as this underpins the Credit Consumer Act 1974. These 2 Acts come in to their own when dealing with money as to how it's raised. what's it for, what's been done Etc...

They nearly saw you coming with a ruddy periscope! No way do you sign this contract - start running!

Where I live, we are a converted house in to 4 Flats. 2 have flat roof areas in excess of 30% the problem with any block policy is that unless your actual flat roof is covered and stated on the paperwork of which you have had sight of - you soon won't be. A lot of Co's fail to inform the insurer of this fact which applies to a lot of Flat owners. We took the bull by the horns & insured ourselves as our Leases state the Insurance has to reflect the specific needs of the Property. The biggest one being the flat roof area. We saved over 50% by doing it too. You'll need to identify from when the Insurance runs and then insure 24 Hrs before and be cheeky let the opposition know or your intentions if you can 3 Mths before. Most Insurances are good for 3 Mths, as in the quote. You are a consumer you have the right to source your own Insurance.

OK I've never heard of this either. As the others have said you need to go over the Title Deeds here in detail. Few Freehold property's come with covenants. If you are truely that suspicious about this woman there is another way... You & the other residents could do a gang up & fire her on a vote of no confidence? I would certainly raise Q's as to the validity of the Accts & how much money is involved. Sometimes it pays to google a name or that of the Co. to see if there is any cartel activity including shared Directorships.

I could be way of track here but going by memory as you are a Freeholder and jointly with the other Flat - you're untouchable. Both parties have to agree to any changes made to the Property and or Premises. No you can't be forced to sign for a new Lease or a Variation of the Lease either. Avoid at all costs the LVT as they tend to be biased towards who has the best solicitor. Also to remember here too: The Lease is signed contract under seal, once the Mortgage is redeemed for the considered sum - it's yours. You've no need to worry about the Fee Simple whether or not it's in the Lease as it's yours by buying the Freehold. The only downside I can see is if the former Lender wants to rock the boat later in that they sell the Flat & retain the Freehold so as to become a bully. It may transpire that they'll be difficult as to say insuring the building? Hope this helps.

You could try arguing that the contract is not a fair & reasonable one. What surprises me is that you are a Freeholder. Here's a Q. for you. Does it state within the Title Deeds, words to the effect Fee Simple as being yours? (fee simple is your right to pass on to your heirs your home). The reason I'm asking is that if so then once the Mortgage is redeemed the Property is yours in accordance with a shed load of old Acts which have yet to be repealed. Hope this helps.