Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The firm has benefited from the AI boom, making it the third-most valuable company in the US.View the full article
    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Privately owned flat subject to bianuual inspections?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1957 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I recently purchased a tenanted property with a leasehold of 125 years.

As there are 3 other flats and a commercial premises as part of the building there is a managing agent in charge.

It is a first floor premises and the agent recently requested access to the property for a bi annual inspection.

The tenant was unhappy about this (as there had been a historical bad relationship between tenant and agent - which I inherited) so instead photographs were supplied.

 

The agent is now insisting that going forward they are allowed access to the premises for such inspections.

My tenant is still refusing access, I am happy to support this (for the sake of positive relations) but wonder where we stand legally on the matter?

Do I have to allow access considering I own the property?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's in the lease, yes but it would be the first time i hear of something like this.

If no inspection is mentioned in the lease, tell them to jog off.

They've got nothing to do with the flat interiors.

If they start being silly, come back here and I can give you some advice on how to destroy them, starting from account inspection which you are entitled to by law.

Lots of dodgy stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're going to try to fob you off with health and safety.

When they use that ask them what act of parliament they're referring to and which specific point.

That will throw them into confusion mode as there's nothing in law which entitles them to enter your property, unless it's in the lease of course.

Also, throw at them the right of privacy without going into details.

Tit for tat really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the lease may allow the landlord access for reasons of keeping the fabric of the building in good repair but they cant pass this right on unless the lease says "or their agent" so read it carefully.

make the agnets put everything in writing so you can use their own words against them if necessary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on, have I read tho right.

 

You have bought a property with a Tennant in it?

 

There is a management agent.

Te management agent are telling you what to do?

 

If that's the case FIRE THEM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on, have I read tho right.

 

You have bought a property with a Tennant in it?

 

There is a management agent.

Te management agent are telling you what to do?

 

If that's the case FIRE THEM

 

 

I think OP means he has bought a leasehold flat in a building and the managing agent is acting for the freeholder. If that's so the lease OP has with the freeholder needs checking for rights of entry as well as OP's lease with his tenant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the landowner have a management agent for the property (therefore trumping the household owner)

 

It is of no concern of the person who owns the ground the property sits on what state its in.

 

I'm thinking the previous owner of the flat used the management agent and the new owner ( the poster) has inherited their services

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that tenanted premises by law had to have an inspection done especially if gas appliances are involved? Why doesn't the OP ask the managing agent why an inspection needs to be done?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the landowner have a management agent for the property (therefore trumping the household owner)

 

It is of no concern of the person who owns the ground the property sits on what state its in.

 

I'm thinking the previous owner of the flat used the management agent and the new owner ( the poster) has inherited their services

 

It's standard for the owner of a leasehold flat to covenant with the freeholder to keep the premises in good repair. The Freeholder doesn't just own the ground they also own the building, it's only leased to OP for (in this case) 125 years. It's also usual for the freeholder to appoint as managing agent to act for the freeholder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a flat that I rent out which is on a 125 year lease. The landowner has no rights on viewing the inside of the property. That's why there I a 125 year lease on it. As the owner of the flat I did have a management company that the previous owner used try to become my letting agent and do the day to day admin required but I told them no, not at 18% of letting fees.

That's why I suspect its a letting agent that's been inherited thru the sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a flat that I rent out which is on a 125 year lease. The landowner has no rights on viewing the inside of the property. That's why there I a 125 year lease on it. As the owner of the flat I did have a management company that the previous owner used try to become my letting agent and do the day to day admin required but I told them no, not at 18% of letting fees.

That's why I suspect its a letting agent that's been inherited thru the sale.

 

OP can confirm which managing agent he's talking about, but I've just had a look at both eh lease on my mother's leasehold flat and my daughter's leasehold flat and both have clauses saying the freeholder or their agent or workmen have right of entry after giving reasonable written notice to allow the freeholder to carry out their covenants. Whether OP's has such a clause we'll only know when OP replies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeholders is Simeon who owns the building AND the ground it sits on.

 

The property has a 125 year lease.

This allows the persn who is the lease holder ( in this case its the owner of the building) to use the land as their own for a period of 125 years. After the 125 years the land and anything upon it is now the land owners.

 

So there are ,in this case, 2 leaseholders one owner and a management company and a tenant.

 

Owner is a leaseholder as well

Tenant is a lease holder.

Managment company are having a strop because they are not getting their way

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thanks for all your comments.

I hadn't realised there were so many responses as I'm new to this wonderful site and thought I would be alerted.

To clarify: I bought a tenanted flat and the agents are acting on behalf of the freeholder.

My lease is 125 yrs and the property is first floor (above a shop) has a communal area as there are also 2 other first floor flats.

My Lease states:

Access to the property - 'subject to compliance with the conditions of entry, the right to enter the property, with or without agents, professional advisors, workmen and equipment as far as is reasonably necessary:

4.1 to inspect or carry out works to retained parts, flats or commercial premises.

4.1.3 to inspect the state of repair and condition of the property (following which the landlord may give the tenant notice of any breach of the tenant covenants relating the repair and condition of the property)

4.1.4 to inspect the property to ensure there has been no breach of the tenant covenants.

 

Does this mean I have to let them in???

Edited by BIDDIDOO
Link to post
Share on other sites

You should of been asking these questions to your solicitor before purchase.

But in short, yes.

 

Its incase of maintaining adjoining propertys and access is required.

Like a ceiling repair that requires access from your property floor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the freeholder has right of access in the terms of the lease you quoted.

 

But I understood from your first post that you yourself are not concerned about giving access to the freeholders managing agent but you don't live there. It is occupied by your tenant (you've bought it as a Buy to Let?) and they are being difficult about allowing access. So you need to also look at what your tenancy agreement with your tenant says. Really it ought to be written so that whatever rights of access for the freeholder in your lease are also given by your tenant, but they probably aren't identical.

 

 

If the situation is that your freeholder wants access it is entitled to under the lease but there is no right of access under the tenancy agreement with your tenant you have a problem. I don't know what happens then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The plot thickens....

I have the tenancy agreement and it's worded similarly, so I'll have to persuade the tenant to be a little more amenable. I've just been to see her and whilst there, some further concerns came to light.

 

I recently received a bill for some works being undertaken in the communal area.

The entrance to my property is on the first floor and you have to climb some external stairs to reach the front door.

 

 

The other two flats (which have just been converted from offices and are still owned by the freeholder, but are up for sale) have an entrance door on the ground floor and internal stairs to the individual flats.

I recently received notice of an impending bill for repairs to the external area. A bill (£650) I was happy to pay until my visit this evening.

 

 

Some quite drastic improvements in the form of wooden cladding have been made to the ground floor area surrounding the ground level entrance door to the two aforementioned flats.

However, the area leading to my own property, has been left in the same state as before and no cladding has been added here. If I am paying a portion of the bill (it's split into 4 - £650 is just my own portion) should the cladding have not been added to the communal entrance to my property also?

 

 

Additionally, there is a small flat roof to part of the ground floor commercial properties within the same area.

As there has been a several unsuccessful attempts to repair a leak on this roof which is affecting one of the commercial premises, they have decided to put some plastic corrugated sheets at first floor height, making a makeshift roof one floor higher, to prevent any water getting to the lower flat roof, therefore addressing the leak.

This is actually a repair to the commercial premises but has been addressed in the communal area (inappropriately in my opinion) yet I am footing part of the bill.

 

 

Again - all advice here is greatly welcomed - meeting with the agents tomorrow......

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

what does the lease say about such works? there is an argument that as the works are not repairs an not part of the common area as far as your flat is concerned then you arent paying a share but if the lea\se says you do then you do but they are supposed to inform you in advance and if the works cost more than a certain sum are supposed to get your agreement on the quotes and who does the work rather than just getting theior brother's copmpany to do it at an inflated price.

i see the works as just tittivation to make it easier to sell his flats and outside the remit of a repair .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi All

Further to my previous posts, I met with the agents who agreed no bill would issued.

Great.

They also agreed to remove the plastic corrugated roof which had been attached to my windows. (picture 1 )view?usp=sharing

I have now received a bill for the service charge for the last 6 months. This bill is 3x the amount suggested when i signed the lease.

It was approximated to be £35 per month, but the bill I have received equates to around £90 per month. Draft service charge agreement here view?usp=sharing

They are obviously trying to get their money that way!

Upon first acquiring the property, I received and paid a service charge bill for around £40 per month, which I paid, but this was then returned to me by cheque as they were about to start work on the other 2 flats and said that they would waive the service charge until works were completed.

I have now received this further inflated service charge, which is obviously to pay for the improvements made outside of the 2 ground floor flats (an area that has to be passed through to access my own, but my own outside are has not been subject to similar renovations) they want to charge me separately (£997) for conducting similar renovations in my immediate external area. actual service charge breakdown here view?usp=sharing

It is also to pay for the corrugated plastic roof shown in the picture (picture 1 view?usp=sharing)

 

This is the monstrous view from immediately outside the front door. view?usp=sharing

I have objected strongly to this roof for the reasons outlined initially in this thread but it remains attached to my own properties windows.

 

I'm going to admit to being baffled by the legal jargon and am currently simply refusing to pay.

Not sure what to do next caggers, but really feel this is very unjust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...