LandlordZONE

23

Aug, 2014

Saturday

Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    oop north
    Posts
    4,858

    Default How would LVT / FTT view these lease violations.


    I know LHA will advise to ask FTT to appoint a manager, but in the meantime ....

    All flat owners are ( incorrectly ) directors. They have used their Directorship powers to not obey the lease.

    They use their directorship to ensure leaseholders do not get "sued" for any breaches of the lease, because that would mean they are sueing themselves.

    As the Directors are in effect, representing the freeholder, "could" it be said that certain breaches of the lease have been, for the rest of time, been waived.

    How would you get over to the LVT / FTT the fact that the Directors were not acting as Directors / freeholders, but as Leaseholders for their own gains, therefore no parts of the lease have been waived.

    There are various items that have not been complied with. Flats change ownership, and the next leaseholder thinks the lease does not apply to them, and they are made a Director by the other directors, thereby perpetuating lease breaches, with instructions not to sue leaseholders.

    Anyone come across this with the LVT ? and would LVT say, ( for items listed )well, it's gone on for 7 years, and you have therefore waived certain parts of the lease,

    therefore anyone can park anywhere, anyone can park on the common ground and block people in, anyone can make major alterations to the outside of the building, anyone can build a shed in the Garden.
    Rip out page 6, 8 and 15 of your lease, it no longer applies as it has been waived by the Directors.

    Need to go to the LVT, but don't want to waste my time.

    R.a.M.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    oop north
    Posts
    4,858

    Default

    Need to go to the FTT, as a pre cursor to appointing a Manager, but if lease covenants have been waived, there is then no point in appointing a manager via the FTT to ensure the lease is obeyed, if FTT say certain items which i need rectifying, have been waived because the directors were not acting as directors.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Foundation trench for New Shed@ Ham on Rye
    Posts
    14,616

    Default

    A shareholder or director can litigate under company law however its far cheaper to get a manager appointment ideally as a recover in this case with the freehold interest.
    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. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    oop north
    Posts
    4,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
    A shareholder or director can litigate under company law however its far cheaper to get a manager appointment ideally as a recover in this case with the freehold interest.
    yes, but, would the LVT ftt still say the directors with acting irresponsibly, in their own interests, flouting the laws and proceedures, are representing the freeholder, then the freeholder has waived the rights to covenants on page 6, 8 an 15,

    In other words, the freeholder decided not to take action for 7 years, therefore the covenants have been waived.
    I know it is impossible to state what the LVT will say, but in anyones opinion, what is the possiblity they will come to the waived conclusion ?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Andalucía
    Posts
    9,441

    Default

    Directors must act in the best interests of the shareholders. If the directors have obtained an advantage by failing to comply with company law I do not see how the failure to take action can amount to a waiver.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Foundation trench for New Shed@ Ham on Rye
    Posts
    14,616

    Default

    There is an argument for estoppel, and some breaches may be waived, some migth not, however that is a matter of argument when considering the appointment of the manager as
    a what problems there are
    b what the solutions are

    If the case stacks against this them there are individual routes for damages etc and the company route and proceedings against the directors for failing to act in the best interests of the company or if they have entered into undertakings directly with leaseholders or shareholders.

    You can only resolve this through item by item review.
    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

Similar Threads

  1. Leaseholder's right to view Freeholder's lease extension valuation
    By Carpenter in forum Long Leasehold Questions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29-03-2012, 09:17 AM
  2. lease extension from freeholder point of view
    By vidrick in forum Long Leasehold Questions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 25-02-2010, 16:31 PM
  3. Lease- 32 yrs. unexpired- prospective purchaser's view
    By cf007 in forum Long Leasehold Questions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-11-2008, 14:08 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
  •