Aggressive Freeholder/Admin Fee - Help!

[Average_Joe]

Hello again,

I paid the outstanding GR immediately upon realisation, it is just the admin fee that I have refused to pay. I have heard nothing for a week, however, expect to have to take the issue to LVT to hopefully have the unreasonable admin fee struck off.

I should mention, the admin fee was £120. This was reduced to £60 due to circumstances as long as I paid within one week. When I declined the offer was made 'until the end of the business day'. Again, I refused, thus assumed the admin fee would revert to the full £120 and this would be contested at LVT. An email from the Director a few days later referred to the fee as £60. Either way, left hand talking to right hand, they have no idea.

[andydd]

Hi. Well its good you paidthe ground rent, your lease may say that ground rent is payable on xxth every year without notice, etc but this is superceded by the rules in S166.

 

So just the admin charge left, to be payable the FH must clear several hurdles.

 

1. Did you receive a demand, if he has been posting to an incorrect address this would help you, although a court/LVT may conclude that it was properally sent and that you probably received it. Perhaps you could send items using the 'incorrect' address and see if they arrive, maybe using proof of postage or recorded delivery.

 

2. Does the lease allow such an admin charge ?

 

3. Did the demand for this additional admin charge come with the required summary (a lot of FH's forget this, mine does !), see > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1258/made (properally worded, taking account changes such as renaming of LANDS tribunal to UPPER tribunal, right font size, etc).

 

4. Is it 'reasonable' in amount, at my LVT a charge for a simple letter was reduced from £130 to £25.

 

Some would say you should make first move and make LVT application but personally I'd be tempted to do nothing and let them chase you, but clearly you have to be confident in your position.

 

Andy

[Average_Joe]

Hello Andy,

Sorry for the delay.

1.) I received no demand whatsoever. Recently, two of my neighbours have failed to receive demands also.

2.) I find nothing in the lease that states admin fees are payable.

3.) I will have to recheck the summary and ensure it complies.

4.) The fee is £120 which I feel unreasonable for sending one letter.

[andydd]

Well.

 

If no demand then not payable.

 

Many old leases habve no 'admin fees' clauses although most have a s146 forfeiture clause that a FH could try and use if he is sneaky.

 

Many FH forget althogether that admin charges as well as service charges need the summary of rights, things to chcek are correct font size (10) and does it say LANDS tribunal still, NOTE: this has recently been completely changed again, after 1st July 2013, the LVT changed into First Tier Tribunal (see > http://www.lease-advice.org/news/story/?item=155)

 

At an LVT, mine decided that £130 and £75 were unreasonable amounts and that they should be £25.

[bellijayne]

Try this angle.

Give them 7 days with which to respond all Q's & queries raised to date, when at the end of 7 days you've had no response you will have created Estopple by Acquiescence, in other words you've stopped them dead. By non action on their part is the acquiescence to their own Estopple.

 

Co's like these have no actual concept of law & will not understand what has happened which is where, why & how you write back with the 2nd letter stating you've now Estoplled yourselves. Other forums out there have used this aspect of law with great success. This is old law but still legal & valid. There is also a Maxim for this too unfortunately I can only remember the opening part being "that which is unrebutted..." Can anyone else on here fill in the rest of it?

 

There are some very dirty Freeholders/Managing Agents out there, all they want is your money without ever explaining what it is for. As they tend to be Co's you can always make other waves as all correspondence is classed as ex oficio (from the office) & the Fraud Act 2006 now brings in all Managers as well as Directors. Look under Abuse of Position. Hope this helps.

[raydetinu]

Don't think estoppel can be applied to a non-response; wrong use of the term.

see;

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/estoppel