Any property lawyers on here?
Discussion
Trying to deal with some nonsense regarding the leasehold on my place to do with replacing some roof windows. I've already replaced 3 which were rotten, at my own cost, despite heavy hints from the directors of the residents association that it would be frowned upon due to me not technically owning them. I employed a solicitor and challenged this, it became apparent that the wording was ambiguous and it's since developed into an ongoing legal procedure to establish responsibility.
This has gone on for about a year now without imminent resolution. The association met shortly after I replaced the 3 windows to discuss my actions and granted me retrospective planning permission, having seen the state of the removed windows with their own eyes. However, there are 2 original windows remaining, both in poor condition, and I'm at the stage in the renovation where I'm ready to replace them. As a matter of courtesy, I've informed the directors of my intentions, pointing out that it will again be done at my own cost, and that the new windows will be indistinguishable from the originals externally.
They've more or less insisted I do nothing due to the ongoing legal situation. Given that I don't believe it to be reasonable to be asked to live with windows that are no longer weatherproof and won't close without a fight when opened, also given that replacing them won't make any difference to anyone elses' life, and that a conclusion to the legalities seems a long way off, I've more or less decided to replace them regardless.
I'm interested to read the opinions of anyone who has a clear understanding of the legal position regarding this type of situation, or has dealt with similar.
This has gone on for about a year now without imminent resolution. The association met shortly after I replaced the 3 windows to discuss my actions and granted me retrospective planning permission, having seen the state of the removed windows with their own eyes. However, there are 2 original windows remaining, both in poor condition, and I'm at the stage in the renovation where I'm ready to replace them. As a matter of courtesy, I've informed the directors of my intentions, pointing out that it will again be done at my own cost, and that the new windows will be indistinguishable from the originals externally.
They've more or less insisted I do nothing due to the ongoing legal situation. Given that I don't believe it to be reasonable to be asked to live with windows that are no longer weatherproof and won't close without a fight when opened, also given that replacing them won't make any difference to anyone elses' life, and that a conclusion to the legalities seems a long way off, I've more or less decided to replace them regardless.
I'm interested to read the opinions of anyone who has a clear understanding of the legal position regarding this type of situation, or has dealt with similar.
Whilst I am not a solicitor, I am a leaseholder and director of a block’s management company.
My Lease states that the external windows are the responsibility of the landlord/management company, with the glass of the same the responsibility of the leaseholder.
Having myself several rental leasehold flats managed by Housing Associations, I have considerable sympathy with the position you find yourself in.
I have posted a link to the Leaseholders Advisory Service, the same that offer a free telephone legal solicitor advice service.
http://www.lease-advice.org/advice/
My Lease states that the external windows are the responsibility of the landlord/management company, with the glass of the same the responsibility of the leaseholder.
Having myself several rental leasehold flats managed by Housing Associations, I have considerable sympathy with the position you find yourself in.
I have posted a link to the Leaseholders Advisory Service, the same that offer a free telephone legal solicitor advice service.
http://www.lease-advice.org/advice/
The situation you find yourself in will be defined in your lease. Some flats the windows are your responsibility and some they are the leaseholders / management companies responsibility. Most sensible management companies recognise that they actually form part of your flat and impact on your ability to live there so would usually allow an owner to replace their windows as long as they were in keeping with the look of all of the others. Every flat that I have owned has had that agreement.
Sounds to me like you live in a small block where the residents run it would that be the case? These situations can be a nightmare with windows and roofs and stuff because people get selfish if it doesn't effect them they don't want yj pay
Sounds to me like you live in a small block where the residents run it would that be the case? These situations can be a nightmare with windows and roofs and stuff because people get selfish if it doesn't effect them they don't want yj pay
Wings, that's a great reply, thanks very much. I suppose my main concern is how far the freeholders will be prepared to pursue me legally should I ignore the recent instructions, however, given the fact that I've very visibly attempted to preserve the original architecture where possible ( I live in a conservation area, another complication ), and they've already granted permission for previous refurbishment, I'm not sure how likely it is that they'll feel it's worthwhile.
The existing windows were manufactured by a company no longer in business, and off the shelf replacements in the same dimensions aren't available. So, instead of paying £420 for a readily available unit of the same width, but 200mm taller, I'm having to pay £1150 per window to have them manufactured to fit the current aperture. It was suggested last year when I changed the first 3 that my lease would have to be re-written to clarify that I was now solely responsible for the new windows, at a cost to me of £700. I pointed out that the cost to them to undertake the improvements I had done would have been significantly more to them than £700, and that should they choose to pursue me for that amount, my solicitor was confident of a legal outcome that would force them to recompense me for the necessary expenses incurred. At which point, the line went dead, as they say, and I heard no more about it!
I feel I'm in a bad spot in some respects, in that my intentions are considered, not designed to offend anyone, but will have negative repurcussions, regardless of how indistinguishable the improvements are. Some of my immediate neighbours who have lived there longer than me are driven by emotion more than logic and seem not to be able to bring rationale into consideration on topics such as this.
The existing windows were manufactured by a company no longer in business, and off the shelf replacements in the same dimensions aren't available. So, instead of paying £420 for a readily available unit of the same width, but 200mm taller, I'm having to pay £1150 per window to have them manufactured to fit the current aperture. It was suggested last year when I changed the first 3 that my lease would have to be re-written to clarify that I was now solely responsible for the new windows, at a cost to me of £700. I pointed out that the cost to them to undertake the improvements I had done would have been significantly more to them than £700, and that should they choose to pursue me for that amount, my solicitor was confident of a legal outcome that would force them to recompense me for the necessary expenses incurred. At which point, the line went dead, as they say, and I heard no more about it!
I feel I'm in a bad spot in some respects, in that my intentions are considered, not designed to offend anyone, but will have negative repurcussions, regardless of how indistinguishable the improvements are. Some of my immediate neighbours who have lived there longer than me are driven by emotion more than logic and seem not to be able to bring rationale into consideration on topics such as this.
Thermobaric said:
Tell them you've changed your mind and are taking taking them out to 'repair' them and they'll be put back good as new, looking identical 
Had to laugh at this, as this was the ploy I used first time round.......I removed them, having already purchased the replacements, and when a neighbour enquired as to what I was doing, told them I was removing them to find out the cause of the water ingress and find a cure. I then showed them the extent of the damage, and pointed out in a concerned tone and reasonable manner that they were beyond the point of viable repair. Making replacement inevitable and being done by someone in the position of having no choice. I may again " remove the existing item with a view to repair ", only to find myself in the same situation as last year.............My leasehold flat/block is also within a conservation area, and the leaseholders were refused planning permission to replace thirty Crittall steel windows, with uPVC windows of a similar colour and design. Since nearby properties all had uPVC windows and doors, the leaseholders went ahead and installed the new windows without the necessary planning permission. That was five years ago and we have had no redress from the local authority, who incidentally happens to be our Freeholder.
It may well be that the person you are dealing with at the Housing Association, is just a box ticker and not in the position to give you authority, in which case perhaps if you sign up to https://www.duedil.com/, then search who the directors are of the Housing association, then approach one of the same.
Although if I were in your same position, I am certain I would just go ahead and replace the windows, and if possible keep the old windows in storage for a few months. Take photographic timed evidence both before and after replacement of the windows.
The Housing Association may require (I doubt they will) a variation in your Lease, and whilst the same is a simple document, it can at times be both expensive to produce and a necessity to enable a sale.
Lastly, in the event of you selling, the prospective buyer’s solicitor may require confirmation that the new windows are covered under building regs.
It may well be that the person you are dealing with at the Housing Association, is just a box ticker and not in the position to give you authority, in which case perhaps if you sign up to https://www.duedil.com/, then search who the directors are of the Housing association, then approach one of the same.
Although if I were in your same position, I am certain I would just go ahead and replace the windows, and if possible keep the old windows in storage for a few months. Take photographic timed evidence both before and after replacement of the windows.
The Housing Association may require (I doubt they will) a variation in your Lease, and whilst the same is a simple document, it can at times be both expensive to produce and a necessity to enable a sale.
Lastly, in the event of you selling, the prospective buyer’s solicitor may require confirmation that the new windows are covered under building regs.
Housing associations and resident associations are two very different things. The OP is dealing with the latter which are usually stuffed with the old busy bodies that have lived there for years and don't want change and want to keep all costs as cheap as possible. If you really want to get s
tty commence a no confidence motion against the members of the residents association
tty commence a no confidence motion against the members of the residents association Not a legal answer but a practical one.
Look at it from a different angle, nuances would need to be changed to fit in with the actually structure and ownership of the management company and so forth but...
Have you explained to them that the problems with the old windows are making it difficult to continue to enjoy and occupy your property? It is affecting your quiet enjoyment of the same.
Have you explained to them that it is agreed that the wording of the lease is ambiguous as to the ownership of these and that their delay in addressing this in a common sense and expeditious manner is causing you loss and distress and that their insistence on you not replacing the other windows until the legal position as to ownership is settled causing further damage to your property and making it more and more likely that you will have to move to rented accommodation until the works have been done?
Have they considered that if it is determined that the windows are your responsibility then they will have wrongly sought to take the original steps against you and that they have further prevented you from ensuring that your home remains habitable and therefore would be sued for the costs you incurred in relation to that and the rectification of the additional damage caused due to delay - including the bill for renting and running a second property?
Have they considered that if they are found to be responsible for the replacement of the windows they will have been responsible for the delay in dealing with these works and that the damage cause due to their delay in carrying out their managerial function (and likely covenants under the lease) has cause you to incurs additional cost in rectifying the additional damp and so on and that you would have no option but to sue them for this.
Bottom line are they willing to risk £1,000s of wasted legal costs, of which you would only be paying part via your service charge as you will not need to instruct your own solicitor to deal with this, over the replacement of 2 windows that you are more than happy to fund the cost of?
In summary - make it crystal clear to them that the determination of the ownership of the windows is a side show and they have three choices:-
1. Agree to let you do it and pay for the works and give you consent and deal with the ownership issue in due course.
or
2. Prevent you from undertaking these important works to your Property to ensure that it remains habitable to find that it is determined that the windows are your responsibility leading you to replacing these as intended in point 1 but then also claiming for all and any additional costs incurred by you as a result of their failure to allow you to deal with the replacement of the windows expeditiously once the seriousness of the issue had been identified.
or
3. Prevent you from undertaking these important works to your Property to ensure that it remains habitable to find that it is determined that the windows are their responsibility leading you to have to require them to carry out a managerial function that they should have done when the first windows required replacement and requiring that these are replaced within 2 months (or your losses are likely to rise) and also claiming for all and any additional costs incurred by you as a result of their failure to deal with the replacement of the windows expeditiously once the seriousness of the issue had been identified.
Sometimes the law if the bottom line. Sometimes it is far better to just set out the options and the end games to people to make them realise that they are not pissing about but playing a high stakes game.
Look at it from a different angle, nuances would need to be changed to fit in with the actually structure and ownership of the management company and so forth but...
Have you explained to them that the problems with the old windows are making it difficult to continue to enjoy and occupy your property? It is affecting your quiet enjoyment of the same.
Have you explained to them that it is agreed that the wording of the lease is ambiguous as to the ownership of these and that their delay in addressing this in a common sense and expeditious manner is causing you loss and distress and that their insistence on you not replacing the other windows until the legal position as to ownership is settled causing further damage to your property and making it more and more likely that you will have to move to rented accommodation until the works have been done?
Have they considered that if it is determined that the windows are your responsibility then they will have wrongly sought to take the original steps against you and that they have further prevented you from ensuring that your home remains habitable and therefore would be sued for the costs you incurred in relation to that and the rectification of the additional damage caused due to delay - including the bill for renting and running a second property?
Have they considered that if they are found to be responsible for the replacement of the windows they will have been responsible for the delay in dealing with these works and that the damage cause due to their delay in carrying out their managerial function (and likely covenants under the lease) has cause you to incurs additional cost in rectifying the additional damp and so on and that you would have no option but to sue them for this.
Bottom line are they willing to risk £1,000s of wasted legal costs, of which you would only be paying part via your service charge as you will not need to instruct your own solicitor to deal with this, over the replacement of 2 windows that you are more than happy to fund the cost of?
In summary - make it crystal clear to them that the determination of the ownership of the windows is a side show and they have three choices:-
1. Agree to let you do it and pay for the works and give you consent and deal with the ownership issue in due course.
or
2. Prevent you from undertaking these important works to your Property to ensure that it remains habitable to find that it is determined that the windows are your responsibility leading you to replacing these as intended in point 1 but then also claiming for all and any additional costs incurred by you as a result of their failure to allow you to deal with the replacement of the windows expeditiously once the seriousness of the issue had been identified.
or
3. Prevent you from undertaking these important works to your Property to ensure that it remains habitable to find that it is determined that the windows are their responsibility leading you to have to require them to carry out a managerial function that they should have done when the first windows required replacement and requiring that these are replaced within 2 months (or your losses are likely to rise) and also claiming for all and any additional costs incurred by you as a result of their failure to deal with the replacement of the windows expeditiously once the seriousness of the issue had been identified.
Sometimes the law if the bottom line. Sometimes it is far better to just set out the options and the end games to people to make them realise that they are not pissing about but playing a high stakes game.
craigjm said:
Housing associations and resident associations are two very different things. The OP is dealing with the latter which are usually stuffed with the old busy bodies that have lived there for years and don't want change and want to keep all costs as cheap as possible. If you really want to get stty commence a no confidence motion against the members of the residents association
tty commence a no confidence motion against the members of the residents association 
Hence my post above - they are playing with their own little fiefdom and think that they are invaluable. Chances are that they are not, far from it, if one digs into the papers fully but even if you removal the responsibility of the office that they hold the bottom line is that they will all have to pay a proportion of the costs on this if they fight it through their Service Charge and so it will hit all who pay this the more they f
k about. That is highly likely to motivate people who had no interest in running the show into action. Which in turn means that those cosy meetings at the Chair's with the Secretary and the Treasurer discussing how to deal with Little Jonny and his quad at Number 5 will suddenly be invaded by that most devilish of things - the New Commers...Wings said:
Lastly, in the event of you selling, the prospective buyer’s solicitor may require confirmation that the new windows are covered under building regs.
Yeah, No.Once they have been in there for 12 months a lack of BR Indemnity Policy is invariably accepted. Cost of that sort of IP? about £20 on a £400k property.
More the issue is the dispute with the man. co. so that needs to be resolved one way or the other before any sale as it needs to be disclosed on any sale.
I've owned the house for about 18 months and intend to live in it once it's completed. I've also owned a flat in the same complex for 6 years which I'm currently living in until the house is habitable. There's an unspoken sort of vibe that the long standing resident owner occupiers here feel that they are somehow living in a massively desirable location, and that they're preserving something that doesn't really exist, other than in their own minds. Hard to describe accurately.
I'm a tradesman, and have a signwritten van. Just to give an idea of the type of people we're dealing with here, when I first bought the flat, the van was one of the subjects of that years annual AGM, at which I was unable to be present. The suggestion being that it brought an undesirable element to the outlook.
I only found this out after I bought the house several years later, and it only became apparent to me when one of the other residents mentioned it. The irony being that the person who brought the subject up at that AGM ( who is a Vicar, and the Chair of the AGM, also a resident ) has since asked me to quote for work that he requires to be done on his own property, obviously oblivious to the fact that I know about his initial stance. The other irony being that I'm pretty OCD and the van is immaculate, unlike many of the residents cars. The fact that it's become apparent to them now we live here that we also own a Porsche and a Lexus among other things has also improved " our standing ", shall we say, and gone some way to confirm my suspicions of how shallow these people generally are.
He and another director both reside within a few doors from me, and I've been at pains to encourage a pleasant relationship between us all, although it's pretty superficial on my behalf, for obvious reasons. So, on a day to day basis, despite my previous " misdemeanours " undertaken in the name of renovation, we appear to be on good terms.
I want to go ahead with replacing the windows. Ultimately though, it's a balancing act. I don't want to live with the unfit for purpose rubbish installed at the moment, but also don't want to be seen to be ignoring the wishes of people who I have to live beside if it means relationships deteriorating into unpleasantness. However, if that has to happen, so be it.
My main concern is risking a legal issue, but given that currently no-one seems to want to put their hand up to ownership of the problem, I can't see how that would be possible? Given the current ambiguity of the wording in the lease, it's hard to know why someone would want to risk the possibility of being forced to absorb the cost of the whole problem by admitting they have the authority to stop me. In which case, I'd appear to possibly be worrying about nothing.
Thanks for reading.
I'm a tradesman, and have a signwritten van. Just to give an idea of the type of people we're dealing with here, when I first bought the flat, the van was one of the subjects of that years annual AGM, at which I was unable to be present. The suggestion being that it brought an undesirable element to the outlook.
I only found this out after I bought the house several years later, and it only became apparent to me when one of the other residents mentioned it. The irony being that the person who brought the subject up at that AGM ( who is a Vicar, and the Chair of the AGM, also a resident ) has since asked me to quote for work that he requires to be done on his own property, obviously oblivious to the fact that I know about his initial stance. The other irony being that I'm pretty OCD and the van is immaculate, unlike many of the residents cars. The fact that it's become apparent to them now we live here that we also own a Porsche and a Lexus among other things has also improved " our standing ", shall we say, and gone some way to confirm my suspicions of how shallow these people generally are.
He and another director both reside within a few doors from me, and I've been at pains to encourage a pleasant relationship between us all, although it's pretty superficial on my behalf, for obvious reasons. So, on a day to day basis, despite my previous " misdemeanours " undertaken in the name of renovation, we appear to be on good terms.
I want to go ahead with replacing the windows. Ultimately though, it's a balancing act. I don't want to live with the unfit for purpose rubbish installed at the moment, but also don't want to be seen to be ignoring the wishes of people who I have to live beside if it means relationships deteriorating into unpleasantness. However, if that has to happen, so be it.
My main concern is risking a legal issue, but given that currently no-one seems to want to put their hand up to ownership of the problem, I can't see how that would be possible? Given the current ambiguity of the wording in the lease, it's hard to know why someone would want to risk the possibility of being forced to absorb the cost of the whole problem by admitting they have the authority to stop me. In which case, I'd appear to possibly be worrying about nothing.
Thanks for reading.
Edited by Heaveho on Friday 1st September 18:02
Heaveho said:
I've owned the house for about 18 months and intend to live in it once it's completed. I've also owned a flat in the same complex for 6 years which I'm currently living in until the house is habitable. There's an unspoken sort of vibe that the long standing resident owner occupiers here feel that they are somehow living in a massively desirable location, and that they're preserving something that doesn't really exist, other than in their own minds. Hard to describe accurately.
I'm a tradesman, and have a signwritten van. Just to give an idea of the type of people we're dealing with here, when I first bought the flat, the van was one of the subjects of that years annual AGM, at which I was unable to be present. The suggestion being that it brought an undesirable element to the outlook.
I only found this out after I bought the house several years later, and it only became apparent to me when one of the other residents mentioned it. The irony being that the person who brought the subject up at that AGM ( who is a Vicar, and the Chair of the AGM, also a resident ) has since asked me to quote for work that he requires to be done on his own property, obviously oblivious to the fact that I know about his initial stance. The other irony being that I'm pretty OCD and the van is immaculate, unlike many of the residents cars. The fact that it's become apparent to them now we live here that we also own a Porsche and a Lexus among other things has also improved " our standing ", shall we say, and gone some way to confirm my suspicions of how shallow these people generally are.
He and another director both reside within a few doors from me, and I've been at pains to encourage a pleasant relationship between us all, although it's pretty superficial on my behalf, for obvious reasons. So, on a day to day basis, despite my previous " misdemeanours " undertaken in the name of renovation, we appear to be on good terms.
I want to go ahead with replacing the windows. Ultimately though, it's a balancing act. I don't want to live with the unfit for purpose rubbish installed at the moment, but also don't want to be seen to be ignoring the wishes of people who I have to live beside if it means relationships deteriorating into unpleasantness. However, if that has to happen, so be it.
My main concern is risking a legal issue, but given that currently no-one seems to want to put their hand up to ownership of the problem, I can't see how that would be possible? Given the current ambiguity of the wording in the lease, it's hard to know why someone would want to risk the possibility of being forced to absorb the cost of the whole problem by admitting they have the authority to stop me. In which case, I'd appear to possibly be worrying about nothing.
Thanks for reading.
I'd be requesting a meeting with the vicar and talking to him about his view on the meaning of Christianity and how that sits with him being a judgemental arse.I'm a tradesman, and have a signwritten van. Just to give an idea of the type of people we're dealing with here, when I first bought the flat, the van was one of the subjects of that years annual AGM, at which I was unable to be present. The suggestion being that it brought an undesirable element to the outlook.
I only found this out after I bought the house several years later, and it only became apparent to me when one of the other residents mentioned it. The irony being that the person who brought the subject up at that AGM ( who is a Vicar, and the Chair of the AGM, also a resident ) has since asked me to quote for work that he requires to be done on his own property, obviously oblivious to the fact that I know about his initial stance. The other irony being that I'm pretty OCD and the van is immaculate, unlike many of the residents cars. The fact that it's become apparent to them now we live here that we also own a Porsche and a Lexus among other things has also improved " our standing ", shall we say, and gone some way to confirm my suspicions of how shallow these people generally are.
He and another director both reside within a few doors from me, and I've been at pains to encourage a pleasant relationship between us all, although it's pretty superficial on my behalf, for obvious reasons. So, on a day to day basis, despite my previous " misdemeanours " undertaken in the name of renovation, we appear to be on good terms.
I want to go ahead with replacing the windows. Ultimately though, it's a balancing act. I don't want to live with the unfit for purpose rubbish installed at the moment, but also don't want to be seen to be ignoring the wishes of people who I have to live beside if it means relationships deteriorating into unpleasantness. However, if that has to happen, so be it.
My main concern is risking a legal issue, but given that currently no-one seems to want to put their hand up to ownership of the problem, I can't see how that would be possible? Given the current ambiguity of the wording in the lease, it's hard to know why someone would want to risk the possibility of being forced to absorb the cost of the whole problem by admitting they have the authority to stop me. In which case, I'd appear to possibly be worrying about nothing.
Thanks for reading.
Edited by Heaveho on Friday 1st September 18:02
Pothole said:
Heaveho said:
I've owned the house for about 18 months and intend to live in it once it's completed. I've also owned a flat in the same complex for 6 years which I'm currently living in until the house is habitable. There's an unspoken sort of vibe that the long standing resident owner occupiers here feel that they are somehow living in a massively desirable location, and that they're preserving something that doesn't really exist, other than in their own minds. Hard to describe accurately.
I'm a tradesman, and have a signwritten van. Just to give an idea of the type of people we're dealing with here, when I first bought the flat, the van was one of the subjects of that years annual AGM, at which I was unable to be present. The suggestion being that it brought an undesirable element to the outlook.
I only found this out after I bought the house several years later, and it only became apparent to me when one of the other residents mentioned it. The irony being that the person who brought the subject up at that AGM ( who is a Vicar, and the Chair of the AGM, also a resident ) has since asked me to quote for work that he requires to be done on his own property, obviously oblivious to the fact that I know about his initial stance. The other irony being that I'm pretty OCD and the van is immaculate, unlike many of the residents cars. The fact that it's become apparent to them now we live here that we also own a Porsche and a Lexus among other things has also improved " our standing ", shall we say, and gone some way to confirm my suspicions of how shallow these people generally are.
He and another director both reside within a few doors from me, and I've been at pains to encourage a pleasant relationship between us all, although it's pretty superficial on my behalf, for obvious reasons. So, on a day to day basis, despite my previous " misdemeanours " undertaken in the name of renovation, we appear to be on good terms.
I want to go ahead with replacing the windows. Ultimately though, it's a balancing act. I don't want to live with the unfit for purpose rubbish installed at the moment, but also don't want to be seen to be ignoring the wishes of people who I have to live beside if it means relationships deteriorating into unpleasantness. However, if that has to happen, so be it.
My main concern is risking a legal issue, but given that currently no-one seems to want to put their hand up to ownership of the problem, I can't see how that would be possible? Given the current ambiguity of the wording in the lease, it's hard to know why someone would want to risk the possibility of being forced to absorb the cost of the whole problem by admitting they have the authority to stop me. In which case, I'd appear to possibly be worrying about nothing.
Thanks for reading.
I'd be requesting a meeting with the vicar and talking to him about his view on the meaning of Christianity and how that sits with him being a judgemental arse.I'm a tradesman, and have a signwritten van. Just to give an idea of the type of people we're dealing with here, when I first bought the flat, the van was one of the subjects of that years annual AGM, at which I was unable to be present. The suggestion being that it brought an undesirable element to the outlook.
I only found this out after I bought the house several years later, and it only became apparent to me when one of the other residents mentioned it. The irony being that the person who brought the subject up at that AGM ( who is a Vicar, and the Chair of the AGM, also a resident ) has since asked me to quote for work that he requires to be done on his own property, obviously oblivious to the fact that I know about his initial stance. The other irony being that I'm pretty OCD and the van is immaculate, unlike many of the residents cars. The fact that it's become apparent to them now we live here that we also own a Porsche and a Lexus among other things has also improved " our standing ", shall we say, and gone some way to confirm my suspicions of how shallow these people generally are.
He and another director both reside within a few doors from me, and I've been at pains to encourage a pleasant relationship between us all, although it's pretty superficial on my behalf, for obvious reasons. So, on a day to day basis, despite my previous " misdemeanours " undertaken in the name of renovation, we appear to be on good terms.
I want to go ahead with replacing the windows. Ultimately though, it's a balancing act. I don't want to live with the unfit for purpose rubbish installed at the moment, but also don't want to be seen to be ignoring the wishes of people who I have to live beside if it means relationships deteriorating into unpleasantness. However, if that has to happen, so be it.
My main concern is risking a legal issue, but given that currently no-one seems to want to put their hand up to ownership of the problem, I can't see how that would be possible? Given the current ambiguity of the wording in the lease, it's hard to know why someone would want to risk the possibility of being forced to absorb the cost of the whole problem by admitting they have the authority to stop me. In which case, I'd appear to possibly be worrying about nothing.
Thanks for reading.
Edited by Heaveho on Friday 1st September 18:02
Heaveho said:
My main concern is risking a legal issue, but given that currently no-one seems to want to put their hand up to ownership of the problem, I can't see how that would be possible
Courts are rational places where emotions are put to one side. The scenario would be.....Why did you change your windows without lease permission?
Because they were knackered and damaging the property and my ability to live there. Here are the pics.
Case dismissed
Pothole said:
I'd be requesting a meeting with the vicar and talking to him about his view on the meaning of Christianity and how that sits with him being a judgemental arse.
I'd love to present him with the fact that I know what's been said in the past, but in the interests of preserving the current day to day equilibrium, I've, unusually for me, refrained from a direct attack. My revenge has been to let him think for months now that I'm prepared to do the work he asked me about, and that the only reason I haven't already done it is because I'm so busy with my own property.The fact of the matter is that I have absolutely no intention of doing a thing for him.
I'm taking the bull by the horns and ordering a replacement window from Velux tomorrow, custom made to fit the aperture, at extortionate cost. I'll update at a future date from my prison cell...................
clarkey said:
Do you have permitted development rights to replace the windows? I would have thought you'd need planning permission in a conservation area, as well as permission from the leaseholder.
Flats don't have permitted development rights as it's not a single dwelling. The area will be covered under Article 4 regulations but if the windows cannot be seen from the road or public right of way then it isn't an issue. Even if they can it's not planning permission as such. Article 4 permission is less formal. Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff