Sorry Andy, my original post wasn't that clear - I just wanted some advice on how to reply given Pier's letter to the LVT. Don't go to too much trouble as it was all put together and is now with the LVT for them to decide, will let you know how it goes. Hopefully I get someone who's a fed up with this racket as much as me! Thanks for replying, Mwal

Hi all, Tried to send Andydd a PM regarding this one as I see he has a lot of expertise in this area but help from anyone would be greatly appreciated. Long story short - Regis/Pier management have taken over the freehold of our small block and buildings insurance subsequently more than doubled. I have supplied their submission to the LVT below and would like to know of any key points or messages I should be supplying in my response in order to give myself the best chance of success. My confidence has been knocked by the legal-ese within this letter and would really like some help!! Hopefully someone out there can help stop another insurance rip-off, many thanks in advance, Mwal 1. The Respondent has placed insurance in accordance with clause 5 to the registered lease dated 8th August 2002 via their brokers Oxygen Insurance Brokers Limited (Oxygen) with Brit Insurance Limited (Brit), a broker and insurer of repute. 2. Insurance was re-brokered in 2008 to Brit via Oxygen 3. The insurance premium is payable by the tenants to the landlord by way of Rent 4. The certificates and policy booklet (Exhibit PML 1) are very comprehensive and there is nothing further we are able to comment on. We are not specialised in insurance and rely on our broker who is FSA regulated to arrange insurance and negotiate terms. 5. Insurance is placed by the freeholder on a portfolio basis, not by individual property 6. The insurance is designed to be a comprehensive ‘all risks’ policy and the broker has recommended this type of insurance for the portfolio 7. Premiums are paid in ‘bulk’ by Regis to the broker (i.e. sums for all properties in any given renewal month are paid collectively, we therefore cannot provide a single receipt or invoice for each individual property, hence premiums are clearly specified on the policy certificates). 8. Oxygen has a binding authority agreement with Brit Insurance; Regis does not pay Brit directly. 9. We can confirm that the Landlord does not derive commission from this property in isolation. The Regis Group owns a large portfolio of over 18,000 units and it is the ability to ‘bulk buy’ that enables them to benefit from commissions on the portfolio as a whole. 10. The insurance is index linked and therefore the premium will increase by a small percentage on each renewal. 11. We wish to refer the Applicants and the Panel to the decision in Berrycroft Management Company Limited v. Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited (1996) EWHC Admin 50. The Court of Appeal held that despite the level of insurance premium, the cost was reasonably incurred in the normal course of business. It was considered acceptable for a large commercial landlord to place insurance on block policies with one single insurer. 12. Whilst this practice may not be the cheapest available, we submit that the position may be entirely different to other developments within the landlord’s portfolio. 13. We submit that it is not commercially viable, nor reasonable; to expect a commercial landlord to obtain insurance for each development separately, with different insurers, in order to benefit from the cheapest insurance available. This practice, if adopted, would incur significant cost and time to the landlord which would ultimately be charged via the service charge to the tenant. 14. A corporate landlord is unable to benefit from the same levels of flexibility that would be available to a private individual in the placing of insurance. This said, the block policies issued on such a large corporate scale allow a landlord to obtain favourable terms and benefits included in the policy that would not normally be available to a private individual. These terms in most cases will be more advantageous to a leaseholder in the event of a claim. 15. This position was upheld by the Northern Panel in the case of Perriman & Another v. Ground Rents (Regisport) Limited under reference MAN/00CZ/LSC/2008/0064. Whilst we appreciate this decision is not a binding precedent, we submit that it should be referred to by the tribunal and further would submit that the same is most persuasive in argument. 16. Forcelux Limited v. Sweetman and Another, (2001) 2 EGLR 173. It was confirmed and accepted the insurance premium should be in line with the market norm. 17. We submit that it would be reasonable and sensible to assess the market norm as being an average of all comparable quotes. 18. The Landlord is obligated to provide insurance that is reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount, there is no obligation it must be the cheapest available. 19. We refer to the Judgment of Evans LJ in the case of Havenridge Limited v. Boston Dyers Limited [1994] 49 EG 111, namely “the fact that the Landlord might have obtained a lower premium elsewhere does not prevent him from recovering the premium which he has paid. Nor does it permit the tenant to defend the claim by showing what other insurers might have charged. Nor is it necessary for the Landlord to approach more than one insurer, or to ‘shop around’. If he approaches only one insurer, being one insurer ‘of repute’ , and a premium is negotiated and paid in the normal course of business as between them, reflecting the insurer’s usual rate for business of that kind then, in my judgment, the Landlord is entitled to succeed” 23. The burden of proof is on the Applicant to show that the premium is unreasonable. Schilling & others v. Canary Riverside Development PTD Limited & others under references LRX/26/31/47/2005 Can anyone help with this? A slight bump but also trying to increase my posts so I can PM, apologies!