LandlordZONE

01

Nov, 2014

Saturday

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    161

    Default

    I read that article yesterday. Shocking isn't it! Will watch with interest.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    465

    Default

    So now we can argue that we only have liability for £250 of our £4000 SC... :-)

    I do agree it is absurd to consult on minor things (e.g. changing a light bulb), but in our case we have the management splitting things up so they don't have to consult. I believe this costs us more because they use their favoured people when they might use better and cheaper, plus the splitting of the jobs in itself can run up extra expense.

    Legislating for all occurrences is clearly a nightmare... maybe the politicians do deserve a 30%+ increase in pay, though I think it should be tied to performance :-)
    I am not a solicitor, I am a lessee/shareholder in conflict with the management. Please seek your own legal advice before relying on my comments in this forum!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Foundation trench for New Shed@ Ham on Rye
    Posts
    15,083

    Default

    The original decisions under appeal looked at the conclusion that the appeal took, and pronounced that it would be commercially unavailable and unmanageable to interpret the Act in that way.

    What is telling is that the Chancellor failed at look at section 20 in the round, ie the remainder of that Act that any and all charges still have to be fair reasonable and that there are protections in place. Recent decisions make it clear that it is not simply the cost and method but the manner, so that piecemeal jobs over a year that have a considerable financial impact can be challenged on their own merits without any need or reference to £250.

    That allows for the case in point where more substantial works that ought to be in one job should have been and then therefore subject to the section 20 consultation procedures,AS WELL AS the overriding section 19.

    He also made a contextual and wilful and erroneous misinterpretation of limiting contributions as being fundamentally different to the older £50/£100- trigger. £250 is still a trigger and the £250 a separate but interdependent cap.

    It is therefore preposterous that the Supreme Court has sat on Daejan at the same time the High Court is ruling this pile of poo.

    The wording makes it clear that you can do the works under £250, or consult and what you cannot do, you do next year.
    So while on one hand saying costs in one year that avoid the threshold can now do so by spreading them year to year.....
    In addition such a construction conforms more closely to the ongoing works of repair and maintenance likely to be necessary on an estate in multiple occupation. They are unlikely to be identified as parts of a complete set of works which can be costed at the outset. In the normal way they will be carried out as and when required. The need for some limitation on an obligation to contribute is at least as necessary with sporadic works of that nature as with a redevelopment plan conceived and carried out as a whole.
    Is nonsense as what that then means that he believes minor unrelated ( in nture and timing) works can be still be done, but then in 37 says
    Accordingly, all of them should be brought into the account for computing the contribution and then applying the limit. It may be that they should be spread over more than one year thereby introducing another limit. With that exception, the provisions relating to this service charge do not require any identification of 'sets of qualifying works' or the avoidance of 'excessive fragmentation'.
    So how do you address the unforeseen,he failed to reconcile if you incur £245 and need to incur more, then you consult but then that puts the initial £245 in jeopardy. The reverse is true, other wise you need two trances- oh but that's what LTA 1985 does already....

    Section 20 works in tandem with section 19, and hence the consistent interpretation with pre 2002 CLRA amendments.


    In the words of the Pub Landlord he didn't think it through.


    While those who exploit the situation are duly punished, the majority will in fact suffer, needed works will simply not be done, and for the RMCs RTM and RTE's insolvency is now very real. The bigger landlords and one of mine is thinking of transferring FH's offshore beyond prosecution, as they know that residents if properly adversed will find themselves financially exposed and will fear to take it on.
    Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers. More ramblings atleaseholdpropertymanager.blogspot.com

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    161

    Default

    You should have taken The Chancellor down the boozer for a chat about his decision!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    161

    Default

    More comment and reading

    http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2012/12/this-seems-to-be-taking-a-while/

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Foundation trench for New Shed@ Ham on Rye
    Posts
    15,083

    Default

    he should have the letter on his desk this morning. I hope that he lives in flat ( though if he does it's likley that "we" are paying.

    I hope that he gets a Section 20 for a light bulb- and has to fumble around in the dark for 3 months.
    Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers. More ramblings atleaseholdpropertymanager.blogspot.com

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Just heard that there might well be an appeal by the Freeholder in this case (a friend of my dogs second cousin's baby sitter told me)

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    161

    Default

    So could be another six or nine months at least on this one I suspect!

Similar Threads

  1. Major Works Consultation
    By Rachel G in forum Long Leasehold Questions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 19-11-2011, 17:09 PM
  2. Proposed building works and a frustrated leaseholder
    By Dora.B in forum Long Leasehold Questions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24-10-2010, 10:11 AM
  3. LTA 1985: s.20 Notices for works proposed
    By villa82blue in forum Long Leasehold Questions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-08-2010, 16:07 PM
  4. Delays to major works
    By WivSi in forum Long Leasehold Questions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 19:01 PM
  5. Fire Regs for blocks of flats
    By chmg in forum Long Leasehold Questions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23-09-2009, 16:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •