Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. Thank you Stu007 for your reply. Our previous Managing Agent is not a member of ARMA. They were accreditted by Leasehold Knowledge Partnership but when that body approached them about some of our concerns they simply resigned their membership. Their redress scheme is the Property Redress Scheme but they will not get involved as we are in litigation. The same applies to the Lease advisory Service. I really feel we are well and truly 'stitched up' and the only way our RTM can go is to have some sort of faith in our solicitor, although I do fully appreciate how they feel. Like them I believe that the route the solicitor is taking will just allow the MA to keep messing us about for as long as they want to. Is their no 'punishment' for them for not complying with a Tomlin Order? Our solicitor said that it was, in effect, a court Order, so surely the MA can be sanctioned for breaking it?
  2. I'm not sure if I am in the right area, but hope someone can re-assure us we are doing the right thing. I am a leaseholder in a block of retirement apartments. Two years ago, with 100% agreement of all leaseholders in the block (70) some residents acquired RTM and after lots of visits to other blocks, and doing all the checks they could, the RTM company employed a new MA. After 12 months they decided that these new MA's were actually worse than the original ones, so they terminated the agreement after 12 months by highlighting breaches, using a solicitor. They then employed another MA who, after 12 months, appears to be extremely efficient etc. The problem we have is that the 'old' MA won't release our fund to the new MA. They promised on four occasions over a period of 5 months to hand over at the end of a month, and, to date, they have handed over approximately 30% of our funds. After 3 months, we employed a leasehold solicitor to chase the funds. We were informed that we had to know exactly how much they owed us, by virtue of audited accounts. As the MA would never issue bank statement, invoices or monthly financial updates, we cannot do this. So the legal advice was to go to court to obtain all the account documentation. This was set for a date 10 months after the contract was terminated. Two weeks before the hearing, and after yet another broken promise of transferring the funds, the MA wrote a 'without prejudice' letter saying they would hand all the funds and paperwork over but not until a week after the hearing, as it would take that long to produce the final accounts. Because of this, our solicitor advised us to adjourn the hearing as it would save the costs of going to Court. The RTM Company refused on the basis of all the previous broken promises. From that we had constant pressure from our solicitor, changing almost on a daily basis, to adjourn. These pressure varied right up to the fact that, in the solicitors opinion, the RTM Company would have to pay costs of both sides, amounting to a total of around £18,000 + VAT. There was also a request for £1,500 + VAT immediately for a barrister, suddenly required three days before the hearing. Never mentioned this before in the cost estimates. Our RTM Company was braver than I would have been - they believed that there was no way the judge would deem them unreasonable knowing all the broken promises they had received. So they still refused to adjourn the hearing. Then came a Tomlin Order, written by 'the other side', which offered all the paperwork we required, except Bank Statements and cheque books, if the hearing was adjourned. I understand from paperwork I have seen that the RTM Company still refused until a point where their own solicitor assured them that the accounts could be quantified without the Bank statements. so they agreed to accept the Tomlin Order and adjourn the hearing. Four days after the time limit set out in the Tomlin Order, some invoices and a ledger run off was received. There was also a copy of service charge accounts prepared by the company themselves, not by an accountant. on looking at these documents, half the invoices were missing and there was not information regarding income to the service charge account or the reserve funds. We are now up to date ..... Our solicitor is now telling us we need to go back to Court to ask the Court to order the MA to obey the Tomlin Order. The RTM has explained to the rest of us leaseholders that they are in dispute with the solicitor as they believe all this will do is allow the MA to break it again and again, and they would have to take it back to the Court time and time again. There seems to be no penalty on the MA for breaking what they believe was an official Court order. the solicitor ignores their request for an explanation, and continues to talk in language that doesn't mean anything (according to the RTM) The RTM is asking for support to change the solicitor at this stage. They want to take the MA to Court for theft as they say simply that it is our money and someone wont give it us back. They want to find a solicitor who would do this for us. A number of leaseholders (who as a reminder are retired) don't really understand what is happening and are extremely concerned and upset that for (now) 12 months we have not been able to correctly manage the block and it is beginning to look a mess, reducing the value of our flats. Can anyone please advise what they would do in our position?
  3. Sorry - think I replied to you on Honeybee13!
  4. Thank you for your reply I think without exception all residents here feel desperately sorry for this poor man. Sorry to put it bluntly but he has been 'dumped' here by his sister without any thought for his welfare, or ours. There may well be changes in his life that caused this, but what happens when changes happen again? As detailed to Honeybee13 he is not an owner or a tenant with a shorthold lease. He is living free in his sisters flat in an independent living retirement development (which his trust paid for!) and has a diagnosed mental age of 9. I agree that what the Mental Health Unit are trying to do is help/assist/treat this individual so that they can integrate back into the community. But I think they may need treatment themselves if they think that putting him back into a hostile situation is the way to do it! What better way than to put him back with his sister who has a house large enough to accommodate him. She appears to have the right to say 'No' on the basis she is afraid of him. Why can't we have this same right? His sister has now agreed that this is not the correct place for him and has put the flat on the market. So to integrate him back in the community, what better way than for him to live with her until a more appropriate place is found for him? The most traumatised residents have had meetings with the police, but have not been offered victim support or anything similar. The Mental Health unit will not talk to us, only the police. We have contacted both Managing Agents and Freeholders (both of whom are well known national concerns) with, as yet, no response. The part of the lease that we refer to is copied below: (2) Other than to an assignee or underlessee who shall be over the age of fifty five years at the date of any such assignment underletting or parting with or sharing of possession of the whole of the Dwelling with the exception of a married couple where one spouse only may be under the age of fifty five years pror.ided that such spouse is over the age of fifty years and who shall if required by the Lessor produce to the Lessor a medical certificate indicating that such assignee or underlessee is physically fit and capable of carrying out the obligations and requirements of the Lessee under this Lease save that the Lessor reserves the right to grant consent on such conditions as it may deem necessary to the assignment or underletting of the whole of the Dwelling to a person under the age of fifty five years for the continuous occupation thereof by a person or persons older than that age but subject to the proviso as to married couples above mentioned Thank you for the reminder of checking the invoices from the Managing Agent. We are told we are not being charged, but we not got a copy of who paid it. The written log form is very useful - thankyou. There have been logs kept of incidents but this will formalise it.
  5. Thank you for your reply. There is a minimum age and this man is over that age. However he has a diagnosed mental age of 9 according to his sister. The story that the sister has told us is that when Mum and Dad died money was left in a trust for this poor man. So his sister bought the apartment in a independent living retirement rather than seeking the help he needs! The apartment is in her name. His sister has now agreed it is not the right place for him and has put the flat on the market. Although everyone agrees it is not right for him, the Responsible Clinician in the Mental Heath Department has deemed that it is the correct place for him to return to, even though residents will unfortunately be hostile towards him!
  6. We live in a private block of retirement apartments with no assisted help and a visiting manager employed to look after the building. A mentally ill man has been living in an apartment owned by his sister. For the past 6 months this poor chap has become violent and delusional. He has caused damage and has threatened and terrorised elderly residents. He also exposed himself and made many lewd comments. He also was involved in an incident where he had a gun and threatened residents, paramedics and the police with it. 4 armed policemen, three others and a dog handler eventually disarmed him (it was a replica gun) and he was detained under section 2 of the mental health act. After one month this was upgraded to section 3. His sister has put the apartment up for sale with a view to finding the poor chap more suitable accommodation. It has left many of the residents mentally traumatised and nervous. Some have had to leave for a while and some are under their doctors for nerves and heart problems. Some will still not even leave their apartment. We have now been told that he is to come back under section 17, initially for an assessment with a view to returning. Obviously residents are now even more terrified after assuming he would not be back and more suitable accommodation would have been found for him during the 10 weeks he has been absent. His sister has told us she cannot look after him because she is scared of him and there is not enough room for her and her husband and brother in their three bedroomed house. The sister is breaking the rules of the lease by allowing an unsuitable tenant in her property who cannot look after himself. Our managing agent will not get involved, The police have met us and explained that we cannot lock him out. Our question is what rights do we have, His sister has refused to house him with her but it appears we cannot refuse to house him with us even though he does not own the property. Why can his sister do this and yet we cannot, We fully understand that there has to be anti discrimination laws but this appears to be discriminating against us. The mental health unit have assured us that they feel he is OK to come back. If that is the case, he should be OK to live with his sister. Where are we going wrong with out thoughts and is there anything we can do to safeguard the health of the other 70 residents who live here?
  7. Thanks for the replies and for the further research. I am really concerned about still driving it knowing there is a fault and the insurance situation. I am visiting the dealer tomorrow to discuss my concerns with him. Your comments will be very useful to repeat. Thank you again.
  8. I purchased a new Skoda Citigo from a franchise dealer at the beginning of March this year. Three weeks ago the gears would not engage, I took a video of the concern. After waggling the lever about a bit, it released and I returned the car to the dealer. Under the warrenty they changed the gearbox free of charge although I had to pay £12 per day to eliminate a £1,500 excess of the insurance for the courtesy car. The gear lever jammed again. I again took the video and again returned the car to the dealer. They kept the car for two days and have said that they cannot find a problem and they want me to collect the car. They are suggesting that, as I have car breakdown cover, I use the car until the fault occurs again and then get the breakdown company to deliver it back to the franchise. I am not happy about this as: Firstly - my wife uses this car to transport our two young children to various activities and I dont want them stuck somewhere, Also, what if the fault is gearbox and the gears seize whilst driving? Besides the seriousness of this, would I be insured driving a car knowing that it has a gearbox problem? What are my rights please? Where do I go from here? If I refuse to collect the car my wife will have serious transport issues as this time we do not have the courtesy car as there was not one available!. We bought a new car for reliability.
  9. Hi EveOwes Thank you for the prompt reply. Yes - I think you could say we are paying for the service twice. The service used to be part of the management fee, and now it has been taken out of the management fee and we have to pay for it when we use it. However, the management fees have not been reduced. We paid our yearly management fees in July based on the fact that we were receiving this service 'free' and in July we were told we would now have to pay extra for it. All you say about the lease is correct - it does state just as you say. We do get to see quotes and invoices etc. and the management company do use the cheapest quote.
  10. I live in a retirement leasehold property managed by a Management Company. Two years ago we paid for a particular service within the Management Fees. This service was carried out by employees of the Management Company. The Company, who were in financial trouble, made this department redundant, and now we have to pay additional charges every time we use this service , as the company has outsourced it. We have written for a refund in the Management Fees and have been flatly refused - to quote '...Nor is there any intention to apply a refund to management fees'. We estimated this refund would only be about £250 per year, but we feel we are entitled to it. We are all pensioners. We know we could take this to the Leaseholders Valuation Tribunal but th ecost would outweigh any benefit we may get. Another resident has suggested its fraud and we could take it to a small claims court. Has anyone got any thoughts on this please?
  11. Thank you all for you prompt replies. Obviously my Father and other residents will not be happy with your replies as its not what they wanted to hear! But somehow I don't think they will give up! Kind regards
  12. Thanks Forwhatitsworth for your prompt reply. Reading my post again, I don't think I made the problem clear. Sorry for any confusion. The residents will have the same brand of carpet as a replacement, but because that pattern is not available any more, it will be a different pattern. This will be laid in the middle of a long stretch of original patterned carpet. It will be between the thresholds of two fire doors, which is where the insurance company say their policy states that they work to. With reference to the insurance policy, Peverels own broker has arranged the policy, so hopefully they have covered everything! No that I hope I have explained it more clearly, have you any further advice please? Thanks again
  13. My Father lives in a retirement apartment managed by Peverel Retirement. All corridors are carpeted using the only carpet Peverel will use - made by Heckmondwyke. All corridors have fire doors fitted at regular intervals. A section of carpet has recently been stained. The House Manager requested Heckmondwycke to visit and try to remove the stain. This they did but was unsuccessful. Peverel claimed off the insurance which they demand my Fathers development has, through their own brokers, Kingsborough, which is part of the same group of companies as Peverel and get paid extortionate commission to use Zurich. The Insurance have come back to Peverel and said they will pay for replacement carpet - between fire doors. They say their policy is to replace carpet only up to thresholds. Unfortunately, Heckmondwycke, insisted upon by Peverel, no longer do the carpet which the Development have, which is about 5 years old. So the Development will have to have two different carpets down a corridor. Halfway down the corridor is a lift. The residents have tried to be reasonable and asked if the insurance will pay down to the lift lobby, but they have refused. Is their anything they can do to get matching carpet? Its going to look a real mess.
  14. Thanks both - I was afraid it may be more action required, with of course more costs!
  • Create New...