council service bill for 'security doors' - not being used properly

[newmoses]

My wife and I are the leaseholder of a flat in a block of six(since April 2006).

My local council is Broxtowe Borough.

 

 

Every year we have had bills for maintenance of some sort ranging from several lino tiles in the foyer to wall insulation.

Some bills have been a few hundred whilst the dearest was over £4,000.00.........

 

 

....fast forward to around 15-16 months ago when the council decided to replace the old wooden entrance door(front and rear),

with new steel security doors and security key.

 

 

Their reason for the replacement was that these would add security to the tenants and stop any tom,dick,and harry coming in...WRONG!!!.

 

 

The doors are continually wedged open with kitchen utensils, bucket filled with sand, house brick, pieces of wood etc.....

...I contacted the council over a year ago telling them about the situation and stressed that we would not be paying for the doors

as they are no more secure than the ones that were replaced.

We heard nothing more for a long time until today we received a bill for £342.59 for replacement of front and rear entrance doors.

 

 

I have video and photographic proof of the doors being wedged open on various days and at different times of the day,both in daylight and darkness....

 

 

.....My questions is,

 

 

do I have a good enough case to refuse to pay the demand based on the evidence I have?.

The last thing I want is for the council to take me to court and I end up with a bill for several thousand.

 

 

The doors are only as secure as the tenants who close them behind them and that is probably never.

 

 

Incidentally,my wife and I purchased a house in february,

moved in to it in June and

rented the flat from July.

 

 

I went there mid week to get some car items from the outside store and

the so called security was wedged open then, so it is still happening.

 

 

I don't mind paying for replacement doors if they are being used properly, but they aren't.

 

 

Any help , especially legal wise, law wise would be greatly appreciated.

[BazzaS]

My wife and I are the leaseholder of a flat in a block of six(since April 2006).

My local council is Broxtowe Borough.

 

 

Every year we have had bills for maintenance of some sort ranging from several lino tiles in the foyer to wall insulation.

Some bills have been a few hundred whilst the dearest was over £4,000.00.........

 

 

....fast forward to around 15-16 months ago when the council decided to replace the old wooden entrance door(front and rear),

with new steel security doors and security key.

 

 

Their reason for the replacement was that these would add security to the tenants and stop any tom,dick,and harry coming in...WRONG!!!.

 

 

The doors are continually wedged open with kitchen utensils, bucket filled with sand, house brick, pieces of wood etc.....

...I contacted the council over a year ago telling them about the situation and stressed that we would not be paying for the doors

as they are no more secure than the ones that were replaced.

We heard nothing more for a long time until today we received a bill for £342.59 for replacement of front and rear entrance doors.

 

 

I have video and photographic proof of the doors being wedged open on various days and at different times of the day,both in daylight and darkness....

 

 

.....My questions is,

 

 

do I have a good enough case to refuse to pay the demand based on the evidence I have?.

The last thing I want is for the council to take me to court and I end up with a bill for several thousand.

 

 

The doors are only as secure as the tenants who close them behind them and that is probably never.

 

 

Incidentally,my wife and I purchased a house in february,

moved in to it in June and

rented the flat from July.

 

 

I went there mid week to get some car items from the outside store and

the so called security was wedged open then, so it is still happening.

 

 

I don't mind paying for replacement doors if they are being used properly, but they aren't.

 

 

Any help , especially legal wise, law wise would be greatly appreciated.

 

Legal wise, does your lease with the council allow you to sub-let?

[ericsbrother]

Not a lease problem but a mortgage one. If you bought a car and used it as a taxi Ford cannot tell you not to, just your insurer or finance co.

[BazzaS]

Not a lease problem but a mortgage one. If you bought a car and used it as a taxi Ford cannot tell you not to, just your insurer or finance co.

 

I don't think that is a great analogy, but continuing it: If the Ford warranty said as a condition "excludes commercial usage", the warranty could be voided by using it as a taxi.

Ford can't stop you using it as a taxi, but there are consequences if caught!

 

If the OP is precluded, by a term in their lease with the council, from sub-letting (& it is a frequently used term in council leases), they might decide not to "stir up a fuss" (that might reveal their sub-let).

If there is no such term or the council gave permission, then the issue is moot : otherwise I suggest it is still relevant.

 

http://www.broxtowe.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1474

From Broxtowe Borough Council's website, (if without permission) the tenant's tenancy is no longer secure as a result of the sub-let, and cannot be made secure again (absent a new tenancy?).

You say it is a mortgage rather than a lease problem : I suggest risk of loss of security of tenancy is quite clearly a "lease problem"!

 

 

The Borough Council has 4,700 housing units. how many of those are in a block of six flats, that had security doors fitted in the time frame the OP indicated?. How many of those were leases granted in April 2006?

 

With the pressures on council housing ("The number of homes we have to let at any one time is low compared to the number of people that need housing.") they may well start looking for the sub-let, if it hasn't been authorised in writing, either if they spot this thread, or if the OP "pokes them with a stick" - what if (as a result of "the fuss") they look at the Electoral Roll for the address, or notice who is living there if they visit the site?.

 

Hence my enquiring about if the OP has permission to sub-let, & if not : does the OP want to kick up a fuss about the doors & risk drawing attention to themself?

[newmoses]

I notified the council that I was going to be letting my flat from 22nd July 2014.They o.k'd that, providing I gave them the new tenants name....I also notified HSBC that I was buying a house and renting the flat.They were o.k. with that...The council maintenance charges are sent out once a year,usually around the 3rd week in september.There was nothing about the doors in last years maintenance invoice.

[newmoses]

I have looked through my leaseholders agreement and there is nothing there about sud letting.The only change to the agreement is from the previous owners who wanted to install their own diamond leaded windows which the council agreed to and amended the leaseholders agreement.

[BazzaS]

I have looked through my leaseholders agreement and there is nothing there about sud letting.The only change to the agreement is from the previous owners who wanted to install their own diamond leaded windows which the council agreed to and amended the leaseholders agreement.

 

Is this the lease itself, or an ancillary document to the lease?.

 

1)if the lease itself, not the cuncil's standard lease, then (see the URL in my previous post for URL)

 

2) you say "the previous owners", but surely the council are the owners (holding the freehold), so do you mean previous tenants?

 

3) even if "no-sublet without permission" is in the lease, you've already said you have permission, so, unless I've misunderstood, you have permission and that is fine....

Unless you don't have written confirmation of permission & are worried the council will deny you were given permission?

[caro]

Did you get a section 20 notice before the doors were installed?

[caro]

Is this the lease itself, or an ancillary document to the lease?.

 

1)if the lease itself, not the cuncil's standard lease, then (see the URL in my previous post for URL)

 

2) you say "the previous owners", but surely the council are the owners (holding the freehold), so do you mean previous tenants?

 

3) even if "no-sublet without permission" is in the lease, you've already said you have permission, so, unless I've misunderstood, you have permission and that is fine....

Unless you don't have written confirmation of permission & are worried the council will deny you were given permission?

 

The OP is a leaseholder so the lease may allow it within certain criteria.

[BazzaS]

The OP is a leaseholder so the lease may allow it within certain criteria.

 

Caro, see link in my previous reply, to the BC's page (giving their standard conditions : partial sub-let permissible with WRITTEN permission, full sublet looses tenant the security of their tenancy)

 

I accept the OP MIGHT have a non-standard tenancy (unlikely?), or permission.

[caro]

Caro, see link in my previous reply, to the BC's page (giving their standard conditions : partial sub-let permissible with WRITTEN permission, full sublet looses tenant the security of their tenancy)

 

I accept the OP MIGHT have a non-standard tenancy (unlikely?), or permission.

 

Your link refers to a tenancy but the OP has said they own the property as a leaseholder. The council, as freeholders, would carry out external and communal maintenance and recharge the leaseholders, but for tenants this would be part of their rent and service charge. Definitely not a standard tenancy. The council would own the structure, but not the actual flat which leaseholders have to maintain themselves, unlike council tenants.

 

http://m.broxtowe.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1478

[caro]

Apologies for link not working (sometimes happens when I post from my phone) but if you google Broxtowe leasehold you'll find the info.

[stu007]

Working link: http://m.broxtowe.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1478

[caro]

Thanks stu.

[andydd]

Ignoring the sub letting issue, as caro asks did you get the S20 Consulation letters ?, did you respond with your thoughts/suggestions ?.

 

The S20 process must be followed if cost will be more than £250.

 

For disputes of this kind, you can apply to the FTT(First Tier Tribunal) previously LVT, Im not convinced though that you could argue that the doors were unreasonable though, assuming the cost and workmanship is reasonable, your issue is that they are being misused and Im not sure that that makes the original installation unreasonable per se.

 

The council could prob rightly argue that there is little they can do if tenants misuse the doors, although perhaps you could argue that they somehow should be made impossible to wedge open (if such a thing is possible)

[newmoses]

What is the S20 process?.Is this where the council send me a letter saying that they will have contractors carry out the work?.If so, then I have had the letteraround 2 years ago.

[andydd]

See here > http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=20