Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral


  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for the response Their request is only to asks for the evidence that we served the notice upon the Management co who was named on our lease along with the previous Freeholder.( we sent them a copy via 1st class mail) We carried out an online land registry search and the recent freeholders name is souly listed, that's who we served the notice to. We don't want them to throw a spanner in the works over this. We note the solicitors are NOT shall we say leaseholder friendly by their reviews, maybe we should have got proof of posting. By the solicitor also demanding 10% we hope this means they recognize that we qualify. We are armed with recent outcomes of other leaseholders outcomes on our development that show the cost to be between 6-8k to extend the lease. On receipt of their counter offer we will instruct a expert solicitor. If the offer is too high we will have to instruct a lease extension specialist. If we get it for under 9k we would have made a substantial saving on cost
  2. Hi we have issued a Sec42 notice (taken from a template) on our freeholder, who’s address we obtained from the land registry, Who were solely listed as the freeholder..We have received a response dated 28 days later requested further information . The information requested is for evidence that our S42 was served on the Man co, we did send them a copy by first class Mail on the same day as the notice. We note, mainly the bold part .... “ Once the notice has been submitted, a strict timetable comes into effect: (i) The date of submission is considered to be the “Valuation Date”. So, however long the process takes, only the value of the lease extension on the valuation date will be considered as relevant to this application. It also freezes the length of the lease for assessing the premium. This fixed date is very important for leaseholders who want to avoid being on the wrong side of the 80 Year Rule. As long as you have submitted your application before the 80 Year deadline, you are safe. *(ii) The landlord may request further information, which they must do within 21 days of receipt of the Tenant’s Notice. The leaseholder must respond to this request within 21 days.* (iii) The landlord now has 2 months to respond with his own offer. This is known as the “Landlord’s Counter Notice” or “Section 45 Notice”. The landlord’s response might be: (a) To deny that you qualify. This is unlikely to happen if proper checks are carried out prior to the application. (b) If they recognise that you qualify, they can demand a deposit of 10% of your offer or £250, whichever is the greater. Remember that the leaseholder is liable for their own and also the landlord’s reasonable valuation and conveyancing costs (but not for the hearing or any negotiations). The landlord may then submit their counter offer. If their offer is unacceptable, your valuation surveyor can respond to it and negotiate on your behalf.” As the freeholder request for information was past the 21 day timeline, are we within our rights to ignore this request, and just send the deposit? we are currently looking to appoint a lease extension expert to take on our case, as it seems more complex than we first thought. But we have to respond soon and would like some advice. Thanks in anticipation
  3. It’s now not an exit of any description as it been blocked off as described above. We now have no means of escape over that part of the building, although we have doors leading onto it. We ultimately would like to know If the wording in our lease allows us access to escape this way. Thanks for your kind help and advice.
  4. 4K pa is just the Management fees charge. We are meeting and are all looking and seeking advice. So we can prepare to move forward on this. We are in a mixed use building so our rights are limited. This forum is a great source of advice. Thanks.
  5. We are not looking to use the roof for any recreational use, our expectations are we would only like it as a means of exit/ entrance as needed. . The freeholder has blocked the stairs with OSB board and also boarded up the back door. We hope our lease confirms this use. Thanks
  6. This report is a good read even if you just read the recommendations at the end. Commhold works in Scotland, in fact leasehold is only practiced mainly in England and Wales. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/1468/report-files/146802.htm
  7. Thanks There is a hardware shop below the flat roof. As far as we know the access has been used since the extension was build mid 70s The only barrier is a rail type, poles set into concrete blocks that make a pathway to the stairs down to the back Mews. Thanks again.
  8. Please sign and share this petition to have leasehold abolished https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/238071?fbclid=IwAR18lQmsA5aLt3Pv4igvHDiNOfCF-Xw9xyh3VAKIqVie5FQmffg3JL9i2Sk Hope it ok to post on here, please delete if against any rules.
  9. Hi can someone advise us we are 3 studio flats that have back doors onto a flat roof area that lead to a metal staircase down to ground level. Our freeholder has boarded the staircase up because of trespassers. And now say we have no right to set foot on the roof, a couple of years ago we were issued a key each to the back door that had a fire exit sign on, the sign has been removed. Our lease stats” the right for the lessees for the purpose only of getting to and leaving the premises to use the common landinyand stairways entrance halls footpaths forecourts and any common road way and access area comprises in the building.” We have contacted the fire risk assessment company they told us a rear fire exit was not required. do we have grounds to contest the FH over this our right of way over this roof? thanks
  10. Thanks for the response, we have checked companies house records and can't see any links to the two Management companies. Our Man co is also our FH under a separate company. We have receipts/ invoices from the company that carried out the works, it's just itemised as if they carried out the work. Its obvious they instruct contractors then send our Man co the bill as if they did the job. Their website clearly shows them as Facilities and Management co. So they must get some commision.
  11. Hi we have found that our Management co who we pay 4K a yr to manage our building, Often use another Management co not affiliated to us to organise maintenance on our block. It seem that we are paying two Management Companies for our maintenance work. 1. ours who we pay an annual fee to. 2. The Management company they instruct to carry out the maintenance. All we see is the invoice for the jobs from company 2. Is this normal or legal? thanks.
  12. Thanks for you input, in your opinion, if i went to small claims, I could get paid out (if proven) dating back to 1994 ? and maybe interest.
  13. its a long long story, the FH never maintained out building, gutters collapsed, communal windows rotted, external pipes leaked and were blocked, we had leaks, among many other issues the FH dragged out all correspondence. The FH earns commission on the building insurance, on top of 4.5k pa man fee, and other admin fees he chooses to charge. we were very lucky to have a grant issued by the lottery fund to revamp the front external part of the building this cost leaseholders 5% of the cost to paid to the council. This put the external parts back in a good condition, the FH issued a 1k bill on top of the management fees for his non existence roll in this. I have brought all the issues up with other leaseholders to no avail. I fact i want to either claim the overcharged payments back and move. THts if i can claim the whole amount, or i might stay for a couple of years and deduct the amount from future charges and the go. hence my question
  14. the strange this is, it add up to 104% only i have been over paying its a block of six small flats above two shops. there are other overcharging issues, but the other leaseholders dont want to know, as they are BTLs Its the freeholder / MAN co who are the same, thanks
  15. Since 1994 I have been charged 40% of the building insurance premium, last year when disputing something else i obtained my lease and noticed my contribution to the building insurance was in fact 36%. i have asked for reimbursement, they refused. thanks
  • Create New...