Service charge help!

[Phil3822]

Hi all, posting on behalf of a good friend.

 

She owns a flat in a large block, she normally has to pay £450 a year service charge. Firstly, this year she was given notice that the charge would increase to £605. She paid this.

As soon as she had paid it she got another letter through saying there was another one of charge this year of £600 for further work. The letter said it was a sir (sp?) charge??? It has to be paid next month. Giving her one month notice.

 

needles to say, £1205 is alot of money. The increase of £755 from last year in total seems a bit steep.

 

She is wondering if she has any right,or if anyone here can shed any light of advice.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Seminole]

Could you break down the charge into the categories shown on the service charge invoices? Is this a private or social housing lease?

[citizen1976]

Although this is an old thread I thought I would post a reply as a point of reference as it may be useful to people now.

 

In simple terms most leases allow for the appointed surveyor to raise whatever charge they feel necessarry in order to perform all the covenants contained in the Lease - ie to repair the building, insure it, pay for utilities etc etc.

 

The usual reason that a large one off charge has to be raised is if there are major works to carry out - ie a new roof.

 

If they (freeholder) wish to raise such a charge first they must serve you notice under Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.

 

You have the right to make comments and objections to this notice but ultimately you can not opt out or refuse to pay if the majority wish to proceed or the repairs are obliged to be carried out under the terms of the lease.

 

However if you feel the charges are unreasonable then you can apply to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for a determination on the case. The LVT can decide how mcuh you are required to pay and overule the freeholder.

 

Hope that helps.

[MrShed]

Forgive me if I'm wrong citizen, but Section 20 is the notice to merely provide the tenant with the landlord's name and address is it not?

[bankoff]

Hi Phil

 

Your friend can challenge this payment under Section 20. She has a right to demand that any payment over £250 per flat has to go through the Section 20 Consultation procedure. The Freeholder is obliged to send a letter setting out the works and the information on who is doing the work, and your friend has 30 days in which to question the cost etc and even suggest an alternative contractor for the work.

 

If the Freeholder does the work without this consultation, then your friend can refuse to pay.

 

You can download a copy of Section 20 from the Leashold Advisory Service at http://www.lease.advice.org

 

Good luck

[citizen1976]

Hello Mr Shed,

 

Section 47 & 48 are the articles that deal with serivce of name and address of landlord.

 

Section 20, is a bankoff has said is all to do with limiting costs that can be raised without consulation.

 

Bankoff - not being picky, but it is not a flat rate of £250 per flat - if the percentage apportionment varies then the requirement to serve notice is triggered when any one flat has to pay more than £250. This often comes into effect when penthouses are involved and they may have a % of double the cost of the other flats. i.e if a penthouse share reaches £250, but all the other flats will only pay £125, then all flats have to be served notice.

 

Also the £250 only applies to single contracts. If a long term (over 1 year) contract is entered into (eg a lift maintenance contract) that cost more thn £100 per flat (% rules apply the same as above) then Section 20 must also be served for this.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Cheers

[Phil3822]

This topic was closed on 10 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group