Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 437 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I recently purchased a tenanted property with a leasehold of 125 years.

As there are 3 other flats and a commercial premises as part of the building there is a managing agent in charge.

It is a first floor premises and the agent recently requested access to the property for a bi annual inspection.

The tenant was unhappy about this (as there had been a historical bad relationship between tenant and agent - which I inherited) so instead photographs were supplied.

 

The agent is now insisting that going forward they are allowed access to the premises for such inspections.

My tenant is still refusing access, I am happy to support this (for the sake of positive relations) but wonder where we stand legally on the matter?

Do I have to allow access considering I own the property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's in the lease, yes but it would be the first time i hear of something like this.

If no inspection is mentioned in the lease, tell them to jog off.

They've got nothing to do with the flat interiors.

If they start being silly, come back here and I can give you some advice on how to destroy them, starting from account inspection which you are entitled to by law.

Lots of dodgy stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Very much, this is incredibly helpful.

I'll check the lease.

Currently awaiting a response to my refusal so will let you know how it pans out,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're going to try to fob you off with health and safety.

When they use that ask them what act of parliament they're referring to and which specific point.

That will throw them into confusion mode as there's nothing in law which entitles them to enter your property, unless it's in the lease of course.

Also, throw at them the right of privacy without going into details.

Tit for tat really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the lease may allow the landlord access for reasons of keeping the fabric of the building in good repair but they cant pass this right on unless the lease says "or their agent" so read it carefully.

make the agnets put everything in writing so you can use their own words against them if necessary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on, have I read tho right.

 

You have bought a property with a Tennant in it?

 

There is a management agent.

Te management agent are telling you what to do?

 

If that's the case FIRE THEM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hang on, have I read tho right.

 

You have bought a property with a Tennant in it?

 

There is a management agent.

Te management agent are telling you what to do?

 

If that's the case FIRE THEM

 

 

I think OP means he has bought a leasehold flat in a building and the managing agent is acting for the freeholder. If that's so the lease OP has with the freeholder needs checking for rights of entry as well as OP's lease with his tenant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the landowner have a management agent for the property (therefore trumping the household owner)

 

It is of no concern of the person who owns the ground the property sits on what state its in.

 

I'm thinking the previous owner of the flat used the management agent and the new owner ( the poster) has inherited their services

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that tenanted premises by law had to have an inspection done especially if gas appliances are involved? Why doesn't the OP ask the managing agent why an inspection needs to be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would the landowner have a management agent for the property (therefore trumping the household owner)

 

It is of no concern of the person who owns the ground the property sits on what state its in.

 

I'm thinking the previous owner of the flat used the management agent and the new owner ( the poster) has inherited their services

 

It's standard for the owner of a leasehold flat to covenant with the freeholder to keep the premises in good repair. The Freeholder doesn't just own the ground they also own the building, it's only leased to OP for (in this case) 125 years. It's also usual for the freeholder to appoint as managing agent to act for the freeholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a flat that I rent out which is on a 125 year lease. The landowner has no rights on viewing the inside of the property. That's why there I a 125 year lease on it. As the owner of the flat I did have a management company that the previous owner used try to become my letting agent and do the day to day admin required but I told them no, not at 18% of letting fees.

That's why I suspect its a letting agent that's been inherited thru the sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I own a flat that I rent out which is on a 125 year lease. The landowner has no rights on viewing the inside of the property. That's why there I a 125 year lease on it. As the owner of the flat I did have a management company that the previous owner used try to become my letting agent and do the day to day admin required but I told them no, not at 18% of letting fees.

That's why I suspect its a letting agent that's been inherited thru the sale.

 

OP can confirm which managing agent he's talking about, but I've just had a look at both eh lease on my mother's leasehold flat and my daughter's leasehold flat and both have clauses saying the freeholder or their agent or workmen have right of entry after giving reasonable written notice to allow the freeholder to carry out their covenants. Whether OP's has such a clause we'll only know when OP replies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeholders is Simeon who owns the building AND the ground it sits on.

 

The property has a 125 year lease.

This allows the persn who is the lease holder ( in this case its the owner of the building) to use the land as their own for a period of 125 years. After the 125 years the land and anything upon it is now the land owners.

 

So there are ,in this case, 2 leaseholders one owner and a management company and a tenant.

 

Owner is a leaseholder as well

Tenant is a lease holder.

Managment company are having a strop because they are not getting their way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your comments.

I hadn't realised there were so many responses as I'm new to this wonderful site and thought I would be alerted.

To clarify: I bought a tenanted flat and the agents are acting on behalf of the freeholder.

My lease is 125 yrs and the property is first floor (above a shop) has a communal area as there are also 2 other first floor flats.

My Lease states:

Access to the property - 'subject to compliance with the conditions of entry, the right to enter the property, with or without agents, professional advisors, workmen and equipment as far as is reasonably necessary:

4.1 to inspect or carry out works to retained parts, flats or commercial premises.

4.1.3 to inspect the state of repair and condition of the property (following which the landlord may give the tenant notice of any breach of the tenant covenants relating the repair and condition of the property)

4.1.4 to inspect the property to ensure there has been no breach of the tenant covenants.

 

Does this mean I have to let them in???

Edited by BIDDIDOO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should of been asking these questions to your solicitor before purchase.

But in short, yes.

 

Its incase of maintaining adjoining propertys and access is required.

Like a ceiling repair that requires access from your property floor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the freeholder has right of access in the terms of the lease you quoted.

 

But I understood from your first post that you yourself are not concerned about giving access to the freeholders managing agent but you don't live there. It is occupied by your tenant (you've bought it as a Buy to Let?) and they are being difficult about allowing access. So you need to also look at what your tenancy agreement with your tenant says. Really it ought to be written so that whatever rights of access for the freeholder in your lease are also given by your tenant, but they probably aren't identical.

 

 

If the situation is that your freeholder wants access it is entitled to under the lease but there is no right of access under the tenancy agreement with your tenant you have a problem. I don't know what happens then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really useful thanks.

You are correct in that I don't really have an issue with the access, but the tenant does.

Now to find the tenancy agreement with her....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plot thickens....

I have the tenancy agreement and it's worded similarly, so I'll have to persuade the tenant to be a little more amenable. I've just been to see her and whilst there, some further concerns came to light.

 

I recently received a bill for some works being undertaken in the communal area.

The entrance to my property is on the first floor and you have to climb some external stairs to reach the front door.

 

 

The other two flats (which have just been converted from offices and are still owned by the freeholder, but are up for sale) have an entrance door on the ground floor and internal stairs to the individual flats.

I recently received notice of an impending bill for repairs to the external area. A bill (£650) I was happy to pay until my visit this evening.

 

 

Some quite drastic improvements in the form of wooden cladding have been made to the ground floor area surrounding the ground level entrance door to the two aforementioned flats.

However, the area leading to my own property, has been left in the same state as before and no cladding has been added here. If I am paying a portion of the bill (it's split into 4 - £650 is just my own portion) should the cladding have not been added to the communal entrance to my property also?

 

 

Additionally, there is a small flat roof to part of the ground floor commercial properties within the same area.

As there has been a several unsuccessful attempts to repair a leak on this roof which is affecting one of the commercial premises, they have decided to put some plastic corrugated sheets at first floor height, making a makeshift roof one floor higher, to prevent any water getting to the lower flat roof, therefore addressing the leak.

This is actually a repair to the commercial premises but has been addressed in the communal area (inappropriately in my opinion) yet I am footing part of the bill.

 

 

Again - all advice here is greatly welcomed - meeting with the agents tomorrow......

Edited by honeybee13
Paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does the lease say about such works? there is an argument that as the works are not repairs an not part of the common area as far as your flat is concerned then you arent paying a share but if the lea\se says you do then you do but they are supposed to inform you in advance and if the works cost more than a certain sum are supposed to get your agreement on the quotes and who does the work rather than just getting theior brother's copmpany to do it at an inflated price.

i see the works as just tittivation to make it easier to sell his flats and outside the remit of a repair .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

Further to my previous posts, I met with the agents who agreed no bill would issued.

Great.

They also agreed to remove the plastic corrugated roof which had been attached to my windows. (picture 1 )view?usp=sharing

I have now received a bill for the service charge for the last 6 months. This bill is 3x the amount suggested when i signed the lease.

It was approximated to be £35 per month, but the bill I have received equates to around £90 per month. Draft service charge agreement here view?usp=sharing

They are obviously trying to get their money that way!

Upon first acquiring the property, I received and paid a service charge bill for around £40 per month, which I paid, but this was then returned to me by cheque as they were about to start work on the other 2 flats and said that they would waive the service charge until works were completed.

I have now received this further inflated service charge, which is obviously to pay for the improvements made outside of the 2 ground floor flats (an area that has to be passed through to access my own, but my own outside are has not been subject to similar renovations) they want to charge me separately (£997) for conducting similar renovations in my immediate external area. actual service charge breakdown here view?usp=sharing

It is also to pay for the corrugated plastic roof shown in the picture (picture 1 view?usp=sharing)

 

This is the monstrous view from immediately outside the front door. view?usp=sharing

I have objected strongly to this roof for the reasons outlined initially in this thread but it remains attached to my own properties windows.

 

I'm going to admit to being baffled by the legal jargon and am currently simply refusing to pay.

Not sure what to do next caggers, but really feel this is very unjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...