Service Charges - Forfeiture threat made by LL

[JasX]

Hi all, unsure if this is the best board to post on but here goes.

Had a letter today from solicitors acting for my Landlord/Building owner threatening to 'notify my lender of commencement forefiture proceedings' on my Leasehold apartment if not paid the balance of service charges within 14 days.

Background is myself and a few other leaseholders are a bit miffed the building owner completly disregards his duties under various Landlord & Tenant act sections buy failing to provide any statements or accounts for previous years and a few of us are withholding part payment claiming sec 21A Landlord & Tenant act (1985) protection.

I dont think forefiture is a remote possibility given the law looking firmly on our side but am concerned what my lender might do if the Landlord starts sending them notice of baseless forefiture claims?

Will they throw a complete wobbly and it'll be more hassle than its worth? or should I give up and pay up not knowing where my cash is going or whats being spent?

Appreciate any advice :)

[jeffrey]

First thing (DO IT TODAY):
Write- don't telephone- to your mortgagee (lender). Expressly tell it of the dispute. Expressly prohibit it from making any such payments.

[JasX]

Hi Jeffrey, Thanks for the quick response!

Ok, can I get that done no problem.

I'm suspecting the lack of transparency is more through ignorance/incompetence rather than anything too sinister... ->New building in 2005, inexperienced building owner etc etc, despite being specifically warned about this last year when we did all pay in full.

My initial plan was to write to their solicitor spelling out explicitly the section 21A protection from non-payment I'm claiming and grounds "their client" is non-compliant (and committing offences too for not providing any statements of account?). Is it a bit naieve to think this might work? would a reputable solicitor still send noticies of forefiture to a Lender once they themselves have established them to be groundless?

I'm guessing if they still won't play ball it'll end up in a hearing of some form? or would a better route be to pay up myself and report them somewhere for failing in their duty to provide accounts etc etc see if they get fined and that gets them on the right track?

Am also slightly concerned about them incurring solicitors fees then trying to add them on as service charge costs next year, would they be allowed to do that if my only 'breack' is to exercise my right to lawfuly withhold payment due to failings on their part?

[andydd]

Hi all, unsure if this is the best board to post on but here goes.

Had a letter today from solicitors acting for my Landlord/Building owner threatening to 'notify my lender of commencement forefiture proceedings' on my Leasehold apartment if not paid the balance of service charges within 14 days.

Background is myself and a few other leaseholders are a bit miffed the building owner completly disregards his duties under various Landlord & Tenant act sections buy failing to provide any statements or accounts for previous years and a few of us are withholding part payment claiming sec 21A Landlord & Tenant act (1985) protection.

I dont think forefiture is a remote possibility given the law looking firmly on our side but am concerned what my lender might do if the Landlord starts sending them notice of baseless forefiture claims?

Will they throw a complete wobbly and it'll be more hassle than its worth? or should I give up and pay up not knowing where my cash is going or whats being spent?

Appreciate any advice :)

Hi..Don't admit to any of the monies owing this will scuper your chances at an LVT court.

Did the letter sent to you point out that before a Section 146 notice can be served that this matter must be decided upon by a LVT court ?

In my siutuation my lender wrote to me asking my views on the amounts allegedly owing, this was a few years ago and I was naive and just let my lender pay the amount and add it to my mortage, now however i am wiser and my landlord has suddenly become very quiet when i reply pointing out how his demands don't comply with current statute and/or the lease.

Andy

[animal]

would a reputable solicitor still send noticies of forefiture to a Lender once they themselves have established them to be groundless?


Ha! 'reputable solicitor' is there such a thing? :-)

Our management's solicitor wrote saying the L&T act doesn't apply, so yes, they say anything to get you to pay up regardless of your rights.

[JasX]

Thanks for the responses all, I think I have most bases covered for now.

Letter went off to my Lender this morning first class post, I've also phoned them to put a note on my account that the sum is in dispute and apparently if they did receive a notice from the landlord they'd write to me first and give me 14 days to object.

The letter their solicitor sent didn't make any mention of deciding the matter in a LTV court first but think I've found another get out of jail card in "Statutory Instrument 2004 No.3086" as the amount I'm withholding is just under £350 & below the cut-off where a landlord has rights of re-entry & forfeiture blocked where 'small sums are owed for small periods'.

Have written to their solicitor re-stating the dispute, pointing out the above and suggesting getting their client to comply with their legal duties 'might be a better route to resolution' :)

will see what they come back with.

[jeffrey]

Ha! 'reputable solicitor' is there such a thing? :-)
Not a good way to enthuse me into assisting!

[JasX]

Ha! 'reputable solicitor' is there such a thing? :-)



Not a good way to enthuse me into assisting!

lol, I can't be held responsible for the comments of others in my thread! Your initial advice was very helpful thanks Jeffrey :)

[animal]

Not a good way to enthuse me into assisting!

Sorry Jeffrey, but there was a smiley in there! :-) Been dealing with a few slimballs lately and my opinion of SOME solicitors is at an all time low...

You, of course, are one of the good guys!

[jeffrey]

Better a slimball than a slimeball, I agree.

[Gordon999]

JasX,

You and other leaseholders should be considering using a RTM company to take charge of the service charge account and have full control.

[MUNCHY84]

Whay exactly is a RTM company? and are they expensive?

[Gordon999]

RTM = Right to manage company .

You can download RTM publication from:

http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/

[JasX]

Thanks Gordon,

We're already very much considering it, possibly even a Freehold buy out, stilll need to 100% confirm we're eligible tho as the eventual freeholder as things stand is 'the Church' (xxx di0cesian board of finance, land used to be a church car park) but we're nowhere near a cathedral so *think* from what I've read we're ok.

-The number of leases, flats and physical qualification requirements all check out ok.

[jeffrey]

1993 Act does not apply in a few cases. Schedule 2 lists "Special categories of landlords" for the purposes of s.9. Here's its paragraph 8, but I have no idea what all the ecclesiastical bits mean. Either way, I think that the Act's RTE provisions apply irrespective.

(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect as regards Chapter I or Chapter II landlords who are ecclesiastical landlords; and in this paragraph “ecclesiastical landlord” means:
(a) a capitular body within the meaning of the Cathedrals Measure 1963 having an interest as landlord in property, or
(b) a diocesan board of finance having an interest as landlord in property belonging to the board as diocesan glebe land.

(2) In relation to an interest of an ecclesiastical landlord, the consent of the Church Commissioners shall be required to sanction:
(a) the provisions to be contained in a conveyance in accordance with section 34 and Schedule 7, or in any lease granted under section 56, and the price or premium payable, except as regards matters determined by the court or a leasehold valuation tribunal;
(b) any exercise of the ecclesiastical landlord’s rights under section 61, except as aforesaid, and any agreement for the payment of compensation to a tenant in conformity with paragraph 5 of Schedule 14 without an application having been made under that section; and
(c) any grant of a lease in pursuance of section 93(4);
and the Church Commissioners shall be entitled to appear and be heard in any proceedings under this Part to which an ecclesiastical landlord is a party or in which he is entitled to appear and be heard.

(3) Where a capitular body has an interest in property which forms part of the endowment of a cathedral church:
(a) any sum payable to that body by way of:
(i) the price payable for any interest in the property on its acquisition in pursuance of Chapter I, or
(ii) a premium on the grant of a new lease under Chapter II or section 93(4),
shall be treated as part of that endowment; and
(b) the powers conferred by sections 21 and 23 of the Cathedrals Measure 1963 in relation to the investment in the acquisition of land of money forming part of the endowment of a cathedral church shall extend to the application of any such money in the payment of compensation as mentioned in paragraph6 above.

(4) In the case of a diocesan board of finance:
(a) no consent or concurrence other than that of the Church Commissioners under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be required to a disposition under this Part of the interest of the diocesan board of finance in property (including a grant of a new lease in pursuance of section 93(4));
(b) any sum payable to the diocesan board of finance by way of:
(i) the price payable for any interest in property on its acquisition in pursuance of Chapter I, or
(ii) a premium on the grant of a new lease of property under Chapter II or section 93(4),
shall be paid to the Church Commissioners to be applied for purposes for which the proceeds of any such disposition of property by agreement would be applicable under any enactment or Measure authorising such a disposition or disposing of the proceeds of such a disposition; and
(c) any sum required for the payment of compensation as mentioned in paragraph6 above may be paid by the Church Commissioners on behalf of the diocesan board of finance out of any money held by them.

(5) In this paragraph “diocesan board of finance” and “diocesan glebe land” have the same meaning as in the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976.

[JasX]

Ok Jeffrey,

Am battling with the terminology a bit. Does that section essentially mean:

1. RTE doesn't apply to these boards of finance in any form?

2. RTE is posssible to exercise but there are a few extra hoops to jump through/it needs to be approached in a specific way?

Any pointers appreciated....

EDIT, kk just re-read your post and picked up:


Either way, I think that the Act's RTE provisons apply irrespective.

I got that impression too. Perhaps someone else on the board has experience tho :)

[jeffrey]

As far as I can see, your point 2 is the case. Nowhere in s.9 or Schedule 2 does it state that 'Special landlords' are exempted.