Jump to content

DESAMAX

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About DESAMAX

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Although this appears to address the manufacturing issue, it doesn't seem to make any comment at all on how the material was stored before it was supplied to you and installed. Their report specifically mentions storage and makes it clear that it is not possible to ascertain the storage conditions. In my view this is an important point because the process of sterilising the wood might well kill off any woodworm infestation which was already present that would not be able to prevent any subsequent infestation. This message appears to repeat the earlier m
  2. An update to where we are at.... Hello Desamax Please find attached a copy of the Independent Inspection report. As you will see from the report, the inspection has confirmed that this issue is not a manufacturing fault with the flooring. Please let me explain that during the manufacturing process, this wood is essentially cooked in a large oven for 28 days to cure the wood. During this process, any traces of woodworm would be removed. It would not be possible for any of our products to enter your property containing any traces of live woodworm. Due to
  3. Thanks Bank Fodder, The cost of the flooring in 2014 was £1707.00 thats without fitting ect i believe fitting/ripping out took 3-4 days we had new skirting fitted as well as paint work.
  4. HI The insurance contractor under our instructions ordered and paid for the flooring, i will contact insurance co and independent inspections (who we know work for the DWF) for advice thanks.
  5. Hi we had to replace our oak flooring in 2014 because of ingress from a burst pipe. This was done via an insurance claim. We went back to our original supplier and asked the insurance contractor to order a similar floor to the one we had. The contractor fitted it professionally. After a few days we gently wiped the flooring and noticed the oil had dissolved, we reported this to DWF who sent a contractor to re oil the whole floor. Over the years we noticed the planks were getting lighter mainly on the edges. Then this year wood worm appeared mainly on
  6. Thanks, I have been in contact with lease advisory service who I have another phone appointment with late next week. The freeholder company’s solicitor sent the s45 at the 11th hour it arrived via special delivery one the deadline day. I hope in their haste they might have made an error, i attach the referred part of the notice below. Before I respond to ask for evidence on how their valuer came to his valuation, I would also have liked to ask if the signature was signed by an authorised natural person, and their position in the company, Once this has been clarifi
  7. The s45 admits my claim to an statutory extend lease, they don’t agreed with the premium offered. They have counter our offer with one 110% higher than ours.
  8. Slight up date, i have received a s45 counter notice (admitting claim) This has not been signed by a natural person, its signed ** **** real estates ltd, in pen. Would this be classes as a valid notice? Thanks again
  9. 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
  10. 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 “Valua
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...