Landlord v's Tenant dispute
Discussion
I wonder what peoples thoughts are on the below before I commit to legal advice which will cost me as much as the disputed amount with no guarantee I have a leg to stand on anyway:-
I am disputing the service charges with the management company for a leasehold flat I own, it has degenerated between the two of us to the degree they are threatening me with court action. To avoid that I decided to settle and then take the case to arbitration, I settled 50% last month and due to settle the remainder last week, however a situation has arisen which I think changes things.
I was contacted by the new freeholder late last week, I didn't even know the previous owner had sold it on. Turns out it was sold in March 2017 and he is now, quite rightly, catching up with me as he needs to charge me ground rent and his own set of maintenance charges which is fair enough.
He was not aware of the maintenance company I am in dispute with and he does not wish to use them.
My question here is am I correct in assuming that when the previous owner of the freehold sold it all involvement the management company I am in dispute with would terminate as well?
I have tried asking them direct but they simply will not respond to my calls or reply to my emails, I guess because they are now taking legal steps. I think this a fair and valid question to ask them as it appears a game changer.
Does anyone here have a view on this situation, am I correct or not?
Any input will be most valuable.
Thanks
I am disputing the service charges with the management company for a leasehold flat I own, it has degenerated between the two of us to the degree they are threatening me with court action. To avoid that I decided to settle and then take the case to arbitration, I settled 50% last month and due to settle the remainder last week, however a situation has arisen which I think changes things.
I was contacted by the new freeholder late last week, I didn't even know the previous owner had sold it on. Turns out it was sold in March 2017 and he is now, quite rightly, catching up with me as he needs to charge me ground rent and his own set of maintenance charges which is fair enough.
He was not aware of the maintenance company I am in dispute with and he does not wish to use them.
My question here is am I correct in assuming that when the previous owner of the freehold sold it all involvement the management company I am in dispute with would terminate as well?
I have tried asking them direct but they simply will not respond to my calls or reply to my emails, I guess because they are now taking legal steps. I think this a fair and valid question to ask them as it appears a game changer.
Does anyone here have a view on this situation, am I correct or not?
Any input will be most valuable.
Thanks
shadow1964 said:
My question here is am I correct in assuming that when the previous owner of the freehold sold it all involvement the management company I am in dispute with would terminate as well?
Very unlikely to be that simple.The lease is basically just a very, very long-term contract between the owner of a part of the building and the owner of the whole of the building plus the land it's on. Just as your end of that contract changing ownership (you selling the flat) doesn't change the lease, nor does the other end changing ownership (the freehold being sold). The lease is still the legally important thing, and it hasn't changed.
The Government's funded Leasehold Advisory Service web site, link below, may offer you some advice, the same also offers an excellent telephone free legal advice service, one actually speaking to a solicitor
https://www.lease-advice.org
https://www.lease-advice.org
In simple terms, a sale of a property would either include a transfer of the Management Company Contract with the property, or include a reconciliation of the service-charge budgets and a transfer of any balance. That shouldn't matter to you as tenant because you will still have a continuous obligation based upon your agreed annual service-charge budget payments.
These threads bug me. Why can’t people understand the difference between the freeholder and the management company? Certainly this isn’t a standard tenant vs landlord issue, so quite why it’s described as that is beyond me. Part of me thinks the OP is tying himself in knots by trying to be too clever legally and failing to grasp the basics.
As it stands you owe the management company money for services previously rendered/ will be this year. So you owe them the money.
The freeholder may choose to end the contract with the management company separately, but that’s his decision down the line amd he’ll have to replace them anyway, so you’ll still be paying someone. It’s extrememly unlikely he can end a contract instantly, so any change is likely to take effect a year or so down the line.
This thread should be titled “In dispute with Mnaangement Company over annual service charge”.
As it stands you owe the management company money for services previously rendered/ will be this year. So you owe them the money.
The freeholder may choose to end the contract with the management company separately, but that’s his decision down the line amd he’ll have to replace them anyway, so you’ll still be paying someone. It’s extrememly unlikely he can end a contract instantly, so any change is likely to take effect a year or so down the line.
This thread should be titled “In dispute with Mnaangement Company over annual service charge”.
[quote=Gavia]These threads bug me. Why can’t people understand the difference between the freeholder and the management company? Certainly this isn’t a standard tenant vs landlord issue, so quite why it’s described as that is beyond me. Part of me thinks the OP is tying himself in knots by trying to be too clever legally and failing to grasp the basics.
As it stands you owe the management company money for services previously rendered/ will be this year. So you owe them the money.
The freeholder may choose to end the contract with the management company separately, but that’s his decision down the line amd he’ll have to replace them anyway, so you’ll still be paying someone. It’s extrememly unlikely he can end a contract instantly, so any change is likely to take effect a year or so down the line.
This thread should be titled “In dispute with Mnaangement Company over annual service charge”.
Always some smart arse a post offends, apologies if it did but please get a life. Yes maybe it should be titled something different but I would not be going with your effort not without a spell check anyway. I am not being too clever I simply want to understand the situation hence why I posted.
All I am asking is the freeholder who instructed this management company sold it and as such does his appointed managements responsibility terminate with it as the new freeholder will have his own management company which he does? If that is not the case and they automatically represent him until he cancels then fair enough that is all I am trying to establish.
If they do automatically represent the new freeholder then is it not the case all charges have to be agreed between the MC and the Freeholder? If so this clearly has not happened so again for me it questions the validity.
I understand the lease is the lease and what is on it is legally binding between the freeholder and the leaseholder, all I am asking is the freeholder this management company represents does not own the freehold anymore, they have not been instructed by the new freeholder either as such are they still the appointed management company?
If that is me trying to be too clever and not understanding the basics then guilty as charged and if you get upset about it you need not bother posting so keep your annoyance to your self.
As it stands you owe the management company money for services previously rendered/ will be this year. So you owe them the money.
The freeholder may choose to end the contract with the management company separately, but that’s his decision down the line amd he’ll have to replace them anyway, so you’ll still be paying someone. It’s extrememly unlikely he can end a contract instantly, so any change is likely to take effect a year or so down the line.
This thread should be titled “In dispute with Mnaangement Company over annual service charge”.
Always some smart arse a post offends, apologies if it did but please get a life. Yes maybe it should be titled something different but I would not be going with your effort not without a spell check anyway. I am not being too clever I simply want to understand the situation hence why I posted.
All I am asking is the freeholder who instructed this management company sold it and as such does his appointed managements responsibility terminate with it as the new freeholder will have his own management company which he does? If that is not the case and they automatically represent him until he cancels then fair enough that is all I am trying to establish.
If they do automatically represent the new freeholder then is it not the case all charges have to be agreed between the MC and the Freeholder? If so this clearly has not happened so again for me it questions the validity.
I understand the lease is the lease and what is on it is legally binding between the freeholder and the leaseholder, all I am asking is the freeholder this management company represents does not own the freehold anymore, they have not been instructed by the new freeholder either as such are they still the appointed management company?
If that is me trying to be too clever and not understanding the basics then guilty as charged and if you get upset about it you need not bother posting so keep your annoyance to your self.
shadow1964 said:
Always some smart arse a post offends, apologies if it did but please get a life. Yes maybe it should be titled something different but I would not be going with your effort not without a spell check anyway. I am not being too clever I simply want to understand the situation hence why I posted.
All I am asking is the freeholder who instructed this management company sold it and as such does his appointed managements responsibility terminate with it as the new freeholder will have his own management company which he does? If that is not the case and they automatically represent him until he cancels then fair enough that is all I am trying to establish.
If they do automatically represent the new freeholder then is it not the case all charges have to be agreed between the MC and the Freeholder? If so this clearly has not happened so again for me it questions the validity.
I understand the lease is the lease and what is on it is legally binding between the freeholder and the leaseholder, all I am asking is the freeholder this management company represents does not own the freehold anymore, they have not been instructed by the new freeholder either as such are they still the appointed management company?
If that is me trying to be too clever and not understanding the basics then guilty as charged and if you get upset about it you need not bother posting so keep your annoyance to your self.
Yes three whole spelling mistakes render my whole post compltely incorrect. All I am asking is the freeholder who instructed this management company sold it and as such does his appointed managements responsibility terminate with it as the new freeholder will have his own management company which he does? If that is not the case and they automatically represent him until he cancels then fair enough that is all I am trying to establish.
If they do automatically represent the new freeholder then is it not the case all charges have to be agreed between the MC and the Freeholder? If so this clearly has not happened so again for me it questions the validity.
I understand the lease is the lease and what is on it is legally binding between the freeholder and the leaseholder, all I am asking is the freeholder this management company represents does not own the freehold anymore, they have not been instructed by the new freeholder either as such are they still the appointed management company?
If that is me trying to be too clever and not understanding the basics then guilty as charged and if you get upset about it you need not bother posting so keep your annoyance to your self.
Para 2:
No the contracts do not automatically end upon sale. It will depend on the details of the sale contract, but it’s extremely unlikely that either seller or purchaser would want to confuse the sale with ending contracts with a third party.
Para 3:
No, the contracts and charges stand as is. The sale is unlikely to vary existing contracts as stated above.
Para 4:
See above
The sale of the freehold does not end all existing contracts that the freehold has in place.
Ok great thanks for that, that actually helps a lot, so the existing management contract remains valid despite the freeholder who appointed them having sold it and the new freehold owner has no knowledge of them at all.
If so I will settle the account and then take it to tribunal.
I guess it is for the new freeholder to cancel their contract if he has his own management company correct? If so how does this leave me, will I get a prorated rebate from the existing sharks, sorry I mean management company?
Note:- I did not say your spelling mistake rendered your post obsolete, I suggested only that your preferred title was not an improvement. Quite a prickly character aren't you but with the ability to be quite helpful.
If so I will settle the account and then take it to tribunal.
I guess it is for the new freeholder to cancel their contract if he has his own management company correct? If so how does this leave me, will I get a prorated rebate from the existing sharks, sorry I mean management company?
Note:- I did not say your spelling mistake rendered your post obsolete, I suggested only that your preferred title was not an improvement. Quite a prickly character aren't you but with the ability to be quite helpful.
shadow1964 said:
I guess it is for the new freeholder to cancel their contract if he has his own management company correct? If so how does this leave me, will I get a prorated rebate from the existing sharks, sorry I mean management company?
Depends how far in advance you've paid. They are still the contracted management company, as far as your lease goes, right up until the correct notice that the freeholder gives the existing management company expires. And if he's not started that notice clock ticking yet...The fact the new freeholder seems to be incompetent enough not to know who's acting on his behalf is beside the point.
shadow1964 said:
Ok great thanks for that, that actually helps a lot, so the existing management contract remains valid despite the freeholder who appointed them having sold it and the new freehold owner has no knowledge of them at all.
If so I will settle the account and then take it to tribunal.
I guess it is for the new freeholder to cancel their contract if he has his own management company correct? If so how does this leave me, will I get a prorated rebate from the existing sharks, sorry I mean management company?
Note:- I did not say your spelling mistake rendered your post obsolete, I suggested only that your preferred title was not an improvement. Quite a prickly character aren't you but with the ability to be quite helpful.
What’s most likely is there is a minimum 12 month notice period, which will commence at the start of the annual management cycle. Chances are you won’t get a rebate, unless there is a surplus at the end of the contract, although that could easily be transferred to the new management company to give them a float / cover existing scheduled works. If so I will settle the account and then take it to tribunal.
I guess it is for the new freeholder to cancel their contract if he has his own management company correct? If so how does this leave me, will I get a prorated rebate from the existing sharks, sorry I mean management company?
Note:- I did not say your spelling mistake rendered your post obsolete, I suggested only that your preferred title was not an improvement. Quite a prickly character aren't you but with the ability to be quite helpful.
All of the above is dependant upon the new freeholder deciding to terminate the contract. Being blunt, if he’s unaware that there’s likely to be an incumbent management company, then that would be a bigger concern for me, as he’s clearly pretty inept.
My spelling mistakes, are more to do with fat fingers, small keyboard and iPad autocorrect, which is unbelievably annoying. However, just to continue the discussion, the abbreviation of versus is “vs not “v’s” and yes, I am messing about there.
Gavia said:
What’s most likely is there is a minimum 12 month notice period, which will commence at the start of the annual management cycle. Chances are you won’t get a rebate, unless there is a surplus at the end of the contract, although that could easily be transferred to the new management company to give them a float / cover existing scheduled works.
All of the above is dependant upon the new freeholder deciding to terminate the contract. Being blunt, if he’s unaware that there’s likely to be an incumbent management company, then that would be a bigger concern for me, as he’s clearly pretty inept.
My spelling mistakes, are more to do with fat fingers, small keyboard and iPad autocorrect, which is unbelievably annoying. However, just to continue the discussion, the abbreviation of versus is “vs not “v’s” and yes, I am messing about there.
Not always the case, I have known change of a Management Company within two to three monthsAll of the above is dependant upon the new freeholder deciding to terminate the contract. Being blunt, if he’s unaware that there’s likely to be an incumbent management company, then that would be a bigger concern for me, as he’s clearly pretty inept.
My spelling mistakes, are more to do with fat fingers, small keyboard and iPad autocorrect, which is unbelievably annoying. However, just to continue the discussion, the abbreviation of versus is “vs not “v’s” and yes, I am messing about there.
.
I personally would never again purchase a leasehold , and never again be part of a Management Company, utter nightmare trying to deal with leaseholders with varied interests, values etc.
Ow don’t say that , some people love a lease hold around here !!!
Postitive of a lease hold = nothing
Negatives range from nothing to constant agro and rip of charges ,
I will NEVER ‘buy’ another lease hold ever ever ever, but that’s just me .
Free hold baby , I’m sure 999 lease on pepper corn ground rent are probably fine , but “I’m still OUT”
Postitive of a lease hold = nothing
Negatives range from nothing to constant agro and rip of charges ,
I will NEVER ‘buy’ another lease hold ever ever ever, but that’s just me .
Free hold baby , I’m sure 999 lease on pepper corn ground rent are probably fine , but “I’m still OUT”
Wings said:
I personally would never again purchase a leasehold , and never again be part of a Management Company, utter nightmare trying to deal with leaseholders with varied interests, values etc.
matjk said:
Ow don’t say that , some people love a lease hold around here !!!
Postitive of a lease hold = nothing
Negatives range from nothing to constant agro and rip of charges ,
I will NEVER ‘buy’ another lease hold ever ever ever, but that’s just me .
Free hold baby , I’m sure 999 lease on pepper corn ground rent are probably fine , but “I’m still OUT”
Did we miss that this is a flat...?Postitive of a lease hold = nothing
Negatives range from nothing to constant agro and rip of charges ,
I will NEVER ‘buy’ another lease hold ever ever ever, but that’s just me .
Free hold baby , I’m sure 999 lease on pepper corn ground rent are probably fine , but “I’m still OUT”
Thanks gents for the information.
I don't really want this to go to court so probably best to settle and then take this to arbitration to try and get some money back. It will pain me to send them the cash as I am being royally ripped off (yes I know that is my view and there are two sides to every story), in my view they really are a nasty unscrupulous rip off management company.
I have been proactive in trying to sort this with them but they are slippery and evasive and indeed not forthcoming with details I am legally entitled to such as access to their accounts. As mentioned I asked them about the question I subsequently asked on here and again no response, all I want is clarity before I send the final tranche.
I will discuss with the new freeholder today about terminating them as it appears only he can do this, the sooner the better. I still remain somewhat unconvinced about the legality of the current charges in-place. My reasoning is because when I previously asked this management company about how the charges are constructed I was told they were agreed by both the management company and the freeholder.
If the latest annual fees were formatted after the freeholder sold then clearly this is not so and as such how can they be valid? I maybe a bit like a dog with a bone here but I need as much knowledge and understanding as I can when at the tribunal.
Like others on here I will never ever buy leasehold again, such a rip off and a headache, for me anyway I am in the avoid camp.
Gavia - Thanks for your input much appreciated, do you agree its probably best to just pay and then go to tribunal? I cannot begin to say how frustrating this is. I am being ripped off (they have never attended the property let alone done any maintenance and yet they charge me £3,000 a year (£1,240 repairs, £750 'management fee', £500 accountancy and £500 buildings insurance - something is not right.
I am being shafted and yet they see me as the unreasonable one, it appears they can do what they want charge wise and as little (i.e nothing) as possible to justify them and if I dispute and don't pay I am the one in the wrong?.................................
I don't really want this to go to court so probably best to settle and then take this to arbitration to try and get some money back. It will pain me to send them the cash as I am being royally ripped off (yes I know that is my view and there are two sides to every story), in my view they really are a nasty unscrupulous rip off management company.
I have been proactive in trying to sort this with them but they are slippery and evasive and indeed not forthcoming with details I am legally entitled to such as access to their accounts. As mentioned I asked them about the question I subsequently asked on here and again no response, all I want is clarity before I send the final tranche.
I will discuss with the new freeholder today about terminating them as it appears only he can do this, the sooner the better. I still remain somewhat unconvinced about the legality of the current charges in-place. My reasoning is because when I previously asked this management company about how the charges are constructed I was told they were agreed by both the management company and the freeholder.
If the latest annual fees were formatted after the freeholder sold then clearly this is not so and as such how can they be valid? I maybe a bit like a dog with a bone here but I need as much knowledge and understanding as I can when at the tribunal.
Like others on here I will never ever buy leasehold again, such a rip off and a headache, for me anyway I am in the avoid camp.
Gavia - Thanks for your input much appreciated, do you agree its probably best to just pay and then go to tribunal? I cannot begin to say how frustrating this is. I am being ripped off (they have never attended the property let alone done any maintenance and yet they charge me £3,000 a year (£1,240 repairs, £750 'management fee', £500 accountancy and £500 buildings insurance - something is not right.
I am being shafted and yet they see me as the unreasonable one, it appears they can do what they want charge wise and as little (i.e nothing) as possible to justify them and if I dispute and don't pay I am the one in the wrong?.................................
If there is an appeals process, then you may as well take advantage of it, although how successful you’ll be I’ve no idea. I don’t know how big the flat is, or what the going rate is, but personally I think the fees are steep, the repairs may be totally valid though.
Ignore those saying avoid leasehold at all costs. You’re in a flat and it’s pretty much impossible to sell a freehold flat to anyone, so you’d be buggered there. You can though get a share of the freehold and grant yourself a lease, but only if everyone’s up for it and the freeholder wants to play ball. It’s not the panacea everyone thinks it is.
Ignore those saying avoid leasehold at all costs. You’re in a flat and it’s pretty much impossible to sell a freehold flat to anyone, so you’d be buggered there. You can though get a share of the freehold and grant yourself a lease, but only if everyone’s up for it and the freeholder wants to play ball. It’s not the panacea everyone thinks it is.
shadow1964 said:
I still remain somewhat unconvinced about the legality of the current charges in-place. My reasoning is because when I previously asked this management company about how the charges are constructed I was told they were agreed by both the management company and the freeholder.
If the latest annual fees were formatted after the freeholder sold then clearly this is not so and as such how can they be valid?
They would have been agreed when the contract was put in place. That's how contracts generally work. The contract may have a renewal date, at which point the fee structure would be revised - but until that, the structure will be fixed, unless the contract is terminated.If the latest annual fees were formatted after the freeholder sold then clearly this is not so and as such how can they be valid?
didn't miss it was a flat, its true if its a flat you are going to get shafted by a lease/maintenance in all probability. That's a reason I would never (unless i had no other option) buy a flat.
I know for some people a flat is the only option due to cost/location so i would rather save/borrow/beg change location to get a small freehold over a flat.
in the SE of England on a 2 bed flat its not uncommon to have charges of well over £150 a month for BS maintenance that's either not need or is being charge a crazy rates.
That's £45K over 25 years for a bit of hoovering/ grass cuttting/ bad decorating every 15 years
on top of that your BS 90 year lease is down to 65 and that's going to cost you yet again. IMHO lease hold flats are actually worth a lot less than they sell for, but as they are at the bottom of the market and the most affordable people have no choice, its seems housing follows the inverse of the law of diminishing returns .
I think the Law should be changed to make right to manage as simple as 60% of leaseholders signing a form and asking to change to an "approved" maintenance company. Currently the freeholder has all the power and they are using this to fleece the leaseholders. Its why large company's are snatching up freeholds at quite high prices, its certainly NOT for the ground rent
I know for some people a flat is the only option due to cost/location so i would rather save/borrow/beg change location to get a small freehold over a flat.
in the SE of England on a 2 bed flat its not uncommon to have charges of well over £150 a month for BS maintenance that's either not need or is being charge a crazy rates.
That's £45K over 25 years for a bit of hoovering/ grass cuttting/ bad decorating every 15 years
on top of that your BS 90 year lease is down to 65 and that's going to cost you yet again. IMHO lease hold flats are actually worth a lot less than they sell for, but as they are at the bottom of the market and the most affordable people have no choice, its seems housing follows the inverse of the law of diminishing returns .
I think the Law should be changed to make right to manage as simple as 60% of leaseholders signing a form and asking to change to an "approved" maintenance company. Currently the freeholder has all the power and they are using this to fleece the leaseholders. Its why large company's are snatching up freeholds at quite high prices, its certainly NOT for the ground rent
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff