steve robinson ] said:
Yellow wrote:

Mind you, it's been three years since I moved now.... :-)

On the rare occasions i quote for any works on blocks of flats i always
insist that the money is either paid up front or ring fenced if i win
the job, seen it go pear shaped to often when some of the residents
cant pay or wont pay into the fund and the inevitable trouble it causes
when those that have 'paid' suddenly realise that they are jointly
responsible for those that havent



As for the other people being responsible, I dunno about other places
but our leases did not work like that and we were only responsible for
our share of the total costs. We would therefore not authorise the start
of work unless we had enough money in the pot to cover it.

Out of interest, we once had to get a solicitor involved because one
resident insisted the lease did not required him to pay his share until
*after* the works were complete and apparently it turned out he had a
point - so that was a sticky moment - but fortunately he wasn't a gossip
so no one else ever tried this one on. But he did always pay all his
bills, just later than everyone else!

Yellow wrote:

steve robinson ] said:
Yellow wrote:

Mind you, it's been three years since I moved now.... :-)

On the rare occasions i quote for any works on blocks of flats i
always insist that the money is either paid up front or ring fenced
if i win the job, seen it go pear shaped to often when some of the
residents cant pay or wont pay into the fund and the inevitable
trouble it causes when those that have 'paid' suddenly realise that
they are jointly responsible for those that havent



As for the other people being responsible, I dunno about other places
but our leases did not work like that and we were only responsible
for our share of the total costs. We would therefore not authorise
the start of work unless we had enough money in the pot to cover it.

Out of interest, we once had to get a solicitor involved because one
resident insisted the lease did not required him to pay his share
until after the works were complete and apparently it turned out he
had a point - so that was a sticky moment - but fortunately he wasn't
a gossip so no one else ever tried this one on. But he did always pay
all his bills, just later than everyone else!

As freeholders they are jointly and severably responsible for any debts
incurred unless of course its run as a limited company
This protects the shareholders but it also lays the directors open
personally to being finacially responsible if the work is authorised
without the funds inplace


--

On 24 Jul, 20:40, "steve robinson"
wrote:


The new freeholder cannot change the terms of the lease so its near
impossble without agreement to regulise all leases


Sorry to but in, but that seems plain wrong to me. If the leases are a
mess an application to the LVT to vary the leases will sort out many
problems.

Francis

wrote:

On 24 Jul, 20:40, "steve robinson"
wrote:


The new freeholder cannot change the terms of the lease so its near
impossble without agreement to regulise all leases


Sorry to but in, but that seems plain wrong to me. If the leases are a
mess an application to the LVT to vary the leases will sort out many
problems.

Francis

Yes but the leaseholders have to agree to any changes that may
significantly change the lease agreement , very few leaseholders would
agree to anything that may add more financial burden or place
restrictions upon them . Very few freeholders could afford a prolonged
legal spat with several different leaseholders or even want to
go down that path , the losses could be immense
--

Anthony R. Gold wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:25:02 +0100, "steve robinson"
wrote:

Yellow wrote:

Out of interest, we once had to get a solicitor involved because
one resident insisted the lease did not required him to pay his
share until after the works were complete and apparently it turned
out he had a point - so that was a sticky moment - but fortunately
he wasn't a gossip so no one else ever tried this one on. But he
did always pay all his bills, just later than everyone else!

As freeholders they are jointly and severably responsible for any
debts incurred unless of course its run as a limited company

I am surprised to hear you claim that a freeholder has liability
solely on account of his freehold interest (other say than for
council tax and when no occupier is liable). Can you cite some
authority for that allegation? In this case I doubt he would have
any liability other than by contract.

Tony

Its basic contract law , as the owners of the property they would be
jiontly responsible for any works authorised , the plaintiff could
chase one or all .Its then up to the freeholders to chase each other .

If its a limited company then only the company could be chased but if
the funds were not available it could be wound up , any directors who
authorised the work could be personally liable if they authorised any
works without the funds in place to meet payment , effectively they
could be viewed as trading whilst insolvent

--

On 28 Jul, 21:20, "steve robinson"
wrote:


Yes but the leaseholders have to agree to any changes that may

I'm baffled - maybe we are talking at cross purposes. The point of
applying to the LVT is to have a lease varied regardless of the
consent of the other party or parties to the lease (otherwise there
would be no point in applying to the LVT).

If the lease doesn't make proper provision for the service charges
(for instance) and the proposed changes are sensible and properly
drafted, there's no reason why (a) an application may not be made in
respect of many leases or (b) why it should be expensive. An LVT might
well deal with the application on paper, they often do with lease
variation cases.

So maybe we are at cross purposes.

Francis

wrote:

On 28 Jul, 21:20, "steve robinson"
wrote:


Yes but the leaseholders have to agree to any changes that may

I'm baffled - maybe we are talking at cross purposes. The point of
applying to the LVT is to have a lease varied regardless of the
consent of the other party or parties to the lease (otherwise there
would be no point in applying to the LVT).

If the lease doesn't make proper provision for the service charges
(for instance) and the proposed changes are sensible and properly
drafted, there's no reason why (a) an application may not be made in
respect of many leases or (b) why it should be expensive. An LVT might
well deal with the application on paper, they often do with lease
variation cases.

So maybe we are at cross purposes.

Francis

You cant unilateraly change a contract which in essense is what a lease
is thier would be no point in having a lease agreement if either party
could apply to have it varied without the other parties consent

Any varition can be challenged by the leasee , the idea being that the
process avoids the need for solicitors and court rooms , however if an
agreement cant be reached then the courts will decide .

Generally speaking any variation through the lvt process will only be
granted if case law has set presidents in the past



--

Anthony R. Gold wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:25:06 +0100, "steve robinson"
wrote:

Anthony R. Gold wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:25:02 +0100, "steve robinson"
wrote:

Yellow wrote:

Out of interest, we once had to get a solicitor involved because
one resident insisted the lease did not required him to pay his
share until after the works were complete and apparently it
turned out he had a point - so that was a sticky moment - but
fortunately he wasn't a gossip so no one else ever tried this
one on. But he did always pay all his bills, just later than
everyone else!

As freeholders they are jointly and severably responsible for any
debts incurred unless of course its run as a limited company

I am surprised to hear you claim that a freeholder has liability
solely on account of his freehold interest (other say than for
council tax and when no occupier is liable). Can you cite some
authority for that allegation? In this case I doubt he would have
any liability other than by contract.

Tony

Its basic contract law , as the owners of the property they would be
jiontly responsible for any works authorised , the plaintiff could
chase one or all .Its then up to the freeholders to chase each
other .

What is this "basic contract law" that automatically binds joint
freeholders or owners to make contributions?

In this case, one freeholder contracted with a supplier for work.
Under what right or contract could he (or the supplier) pursue
another freeholder for contribution? I would have thought they must
chase them either under an expressed agreement or else under any
lease the freeholder also held, but there was no right to claim
against them "as freeholders".

Tony

I am assuming using the ops model that the works were required and
nessary for the upkeep of the building (replacement roof) , as such the
freeholders are responsible for the maintainance (i am assumming here
that its not a limited company).As not all the occupiers were
freeholders then those that were would be looked upon as business
partners . Business partners are both jointly and individually
responsible for debts incurred

--