Windowframe responsibility

[stroberaver]

I'm involved with the Management Company of the small development of leasehold flats where I live, and we have the Managing Agent to provide day to day services and property management. Quite a standard set-up, I'd have thought.

Myself and some of the owners have discussed the idea of replacing window frames with upvc ones rather than spending a fortune every few years on the required full external redecoration of the existing wooden frames. However this obviously requires more money in the short term before any savings are realised from no redecoration, and as such we don't expect all owners to support any scheme that involves replacing windowframes (most of the flats are let out rather than owner-occupied, and naturally some landlords don't want to make the investment).

Therefore we need to be sure that it is the Management Company who has the responsibility for the windowframes (and with that responsibility, the authority to instigate the replacement of all windowframes in the development - we couldn't have owners opting out and a mixture of windowframe types & styles due to it being a small development and in a conservation area.

However the Managing Agent is concerned that the lease is not sufficiently watertight in assigning responsibility for the windowframes. I think it's ok, but wondered if anyone here with any expertise in this field could comment based on what I think are the relevant sections of the lease below. The lease does have some typos and grammatical errors elsewhere, which leads into question the accuracy of other sections. However I've reproduced the text below exactly. Firstly, the demised premises are defined as (details of my flat removed):

lease document said:

ALL THAT flat known as flat Number <X> shown edged red on the First Floor Plan being part of the Block and being on the First Floor thereof TOGETHER WITH the doors and windows thereof and glass in the windows and the interior faces of the ceilings up to the underside of the joists slabs or beams to which the same are affixed and the floors including the joists slabs or beams supporting the same and TOGETHER WITH all cisterns tanks drains pipes wires ducts conduits and any other Service Installations whatsoever used solely for the purpose of the Demised Premises (EXCEPTING AND RESERVING from the demise the main structural parts of the Blocks including the roof foundations and the external parts thereof)

In the definitions used in the lease document, "The Maintained Property"...

lease document said:

...means those parts of the Blocks and the Development which are more particularly described in the Second Schedule hereto the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the Management Company and to the costs of which maintenance the Lessee contributes as hereinafter appears

And the Second Schedule defines this maintained property as:

lease document said:

1. The main structural parts of the Blocks including but not by way of limitation the roofs walls foundations floors all walls bounding or within individual flats (other than non-structural walls) and window frames in the Flats and all external parts of the Blocks including fascias and ironwork thereon and external doors.

2. All Service Installations serving the Blocks or the Development as a whole so far as not maintainable by the relevant authority and not used solely for the purpose of any individual flat BUT EXCEPTING AND EXCLUDING the glass in the windows of the individual flats and interior joinery plasterwork tiling and other surfaces of walls and floors (including the joist slabs or beams supporting the same) and the ceilings up to the underside of the joist slabs or beams to which the same are affixed of the Flats and Service Installations which exclusively serve an individual flat or the entry doors of the Flats.

3. The Common Parts

4. The Service Installations (including in particular the Lessor's lighting and power circuits points and fittings) so far as the same serve the Common Parts

From this, my interpretation is that the individual owners are responsible for the glass in their windows (e.g. they have to replace a window pane if it got broken) but the Management Company holds responsibility for the frames themselves. Do you think this is correct, and do you think there is any other interpretation of the above parts of the lease?

Thanks in advance.

[stroberaver]

Jobbo said:

But bear in mind that the lease probably restricts what you can recharge to the tenants by way of service charge (improvements are unlikely to be rechargeable, whereas maintenance and repair would be), and there are statutory restrictions and requirements. You really need to take specific legal advice, and the solicitor would need to check every lease was the same.

Thanks for your thoughts, I don't think there's been any discussion over what can be recharged to the owners. Off the top of my head I don't recall seeing anything in the lease that would restrict what can be recharged - but if such things are possibly an issue then we'll certainly look at getting specific legal advice. What we don't want is to believe the Management Company has the right to proceed, and begin the process, only to be challenged legally by an unhappy owner who isn't willing to participate in the scheme - this would obviously become very costly.

Are there any reasons that the lease for each flat might not be the same? I had assumed they would all be identical.

[stroberaver]

nikaiyo2 said:

Conservation Area, UPVC windows? Are you sure that you can even do what you propose? A lot of councils have REALLY tightened up on what they will or will not allow over the last few years...

Yes, we've discussed it with the council's planning officers. They would tolerate upvc windows on the grounds that the new windows are sympathetic/fitting to the current design and building style (which of course we'd want anyway) and as long as they are uniform throughout the development - they won't allow a hotch-potch replacement of just some windows.

Both of which we intend to avoid by organising any window replacement scheme through the management company, if possible.

I've also found council documents reporting on the conservation area which describe the development as already having upvc windows, so who knows whether the council knows what's going on!

[stroberaver]

Thanks for all the comments and replies, there's lots of things to take into account which none of the involved owners or Managing Agent have brought up yet. I've got a meeting with the Agents soon so will take lots of this stuff to talk through with them.

I'm fully expecting it to be a difficult process - and perhaps one that doesn't/can't get off the ground - but the wooden windows we have are pretty crap, so it's worth investigating. There's a lot of fiddly woodwork on them and the decorating bill is enormous - especially for the upper floors which requires scaffolding or a cherry picker to do the work. Plus the double glazing is wafer thin, prone to extensive condensation, and offers little in the way of noise/heat insulation, which is especially an issue with a busy road nearby. The few owner-occupiers here are all interested in upgrading the windows, most of the landlords probably will too, but we already know of at least two landlords who are dead set against it as they don't want to spend a penny more than they have to - which is their right of course, but a shame that they don't have the interests of the development at heart.

[stroberaver]

The Surveyor said:

As indicated previously, the OP has a real uphill task if he doesn't have 100% sign-up from the other tenants, or the support of the owner. Good luck though.

Thanks, although I should point out that I'm not a tenant, I'm an owner-occupier. There are just a handful of owner-occupiers in the development (all of whom would like a window replacement program to be developed), with the vast majority being let out by (mostly absent) landlord owners. Some of the landlords are willing to pursue a replacement program as they view it as an investment in their, err, investment. One or two have already stated their opposition. The Management Company, of which I'm a director, has the authority to decide on maintenance, expenditure, budgets etc as voted upon at the AGM each year, which most people don't bother attending - but a key point raised here is whether the Management Company has any authority to adopt a program of replacing and improving the windows which may or may not be the responsibility/property of individual owners, given that they may be crap windows but are not actually defective.

We'll be obtaining specific legal advice as it relates to our lease in full, so thanks for all the pointers and things to watch out in this thread.