Not sure if this is the correct forum. Apologies if it isn't.

We own the lease of a ground floor apartment in a block. The block was
constructed about 4 years ago. Recently a severe water leak developed in the
apartment 3 floors above with the result that all the apartments between us
and the leak have been damaged to a greater or lesser degree.

The management company arranges the buildings insurance cover within the
maintenance cover and advises the charge in the maintenance schedule.

When we became aware of the damage being caused we advised the management
company who responded with a reference number and contact details of an
insurance broker. When contacted the broker recognised the reference number
but advised that as of July 1 2008 there was an excess of £500 payable
before their contractors would commence work. Needless to say this came a
some surprise and a question was raised with the management company. Their
response was that due to FSA rules they couldn't advise us on the insurance!
In addition they stated that they only arranged the insurance on our behalf.

We have pointed out to the management company that we have never received
any policy document, not even a summary and have never been notified of the
change effected on July 1. The response was that if a copy of the policy was
requested they would provide it.

Can anyone provide any information on leaseholders rights and management
company obligations in this area. Thanks in advance

On 23 Jul, 20:15, "BobS" wrote:
Not sure if this is the correct forum. Apologies if it isn't.

We own the lease of a ground floor apartment in a block. The block was
constructed about 4 years ago. Recently a severe water leak developed in the
apartment 3 floors above with the result that all the apartments between us
and the leak have been damaged to a greater or lesser degree.

The management company arranges the buildings insurance cover within the
maintenance cover and advises the charge in the maintenance schedule.

When we became aware of the damage being caused we advised the management
company who responded with a reference number and contact details of an
insurance broker. When contacted the broker recognised the reference number
but advised that as of July 1 2008 there was an excess of £500 payable
before their contractors would commence work. Needless to say this came a
some surprise and a question was raised with the management company. Their
response was that due to FSA rules they couldn't advise us on the insurance!
In addition they stated that they only arranged the insurance on our behalf.

We have pointed out to the management company that we have never received
any policy document, not even a summary and have never been notified of the
change effected on July 1. The response was that if a copy of the policy was
requested they would provide it.

Can anyone provide any information on leaseholders rights and management
company obligations in this area. Thanks in advance

The timing is unfortunate here. It is pretty normal for Insurance
companies to change their terms, and demanding an excess of £500 is
pretty normal and does't sound excessive. Maybe the Management company
could inform you about everything that happens everywhere, and if they
did you would pay them more than £500 for doing so.

If you aren't happy with your Management Company you are probably able
to sack them (read your contract). If they are a good Management
Company who operate largely in the background, enabling you to get on
with your lives, and maybe got you cheap insurance with a company that
is paying up rather than wriggling out, you haven't done too badly.

Everyone should pay a share of the £500 excess, not just the damaged
flats. It is an overhead of the entire block.

On Jul 24, 3:20*pm, wrote:
On 23 Jul, 20:15, "BobS" wrote:





Not sure if this is the correct forum. Apologies if it isn't.

We own the lease of a ground floor apartment in a block. The block was
constructed about 4 years ago. Recently a severe water leak developed in the
apartment 3 floors above with the result that all the apartments between us
and the leak have been damaged to a greater or lesser degree.

The management company arranges the buildings insurance cover within the
maintenance cover and advises the charge in the maintenance schedule.

When we became aware of the damage being caused we advised the management
company who responded with a reference number and contact details of an
insurance broker. When contacted the broker recognised the reference number
but advised that as of July 1 2008 there was an excess of £500 payable
before their contractors would commence work. Needless to say this came a
some surprise and a question was raised with the management company. Their
response was that due to FSA rules they couldn't advise us on the insurance!
In addition they stated that they only arranged the insurance on our behalf.

We have pointed out to the management company that we have never received
any policy document, not even a summary and have never been notified of the
change effected on July 1. The response was that if a copy of the policy was
requested they would provide it.

Can anyone provide any information on leaseholders rights and management
company obligations in this area. Thanks in advance

The timing is unfortunate here. It is pretty normal for Insurance
companies to change their terms, and demanding an excess of £500 is
pretty normal and does't sound excessive. Maybe the Management company
could inform you about everything that happens everywhere, and if they
did you would pay them more than £500 for doing so.

If you aren't happy with your Management Company you are probably able
to sack them (read your contract). If they are a good Management
Company who operate largely in the background, enabling you to get on
with your lives, and maybe got you cheap insurance with a company that
is paying up rather than wriggling out, you haven't done too badly.

Everyone should pay a share of the £500 excess, not just the damaged
flats. It is an overhead of the entire block.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Surely the owner of the lease of the leaking apartment carries the
liability for this damage. Why should everyone else pay a share of
the £500?

Robert

On 24 Jul, 15:30, RobertL wrote:
On Jul 24, 3:20*pm, wrote:





On 23 Jul, 20:15, "BobS" wrote:

Not sure if this is the correct forum. Apologies if it isn't.

We own the lease of a ground floor apartment in a block. The block was
constructed about 4 years ago. Recently a severe water leak developed in the
apartment 3 floors above with the result that all the apartments between us
and the leak have been damaged to a greater or lesser degree.

The management company arranges the buildings insurance cover within the
maintenance cover and advises the charge in the maintenance schedule.

When we became aware of the damage being caused we advised the management
company who responded with a reference number and contact details of an
insurance broker. When contacted the broker recognised the reference number
but advised that as of July 1 2008 there was an excess of £500 payable
before their contractors would commence work. Needless to say this came a
some surprise and a question was raised with the management company. Their
response was that due to FSA rules they couldn't advise us on the insurance!
In addition they stated that they only arranged the insurance on our behalf.

We have pointed out to the management company that we have never received
any policy document, not even a summary and have never been notified of the
change effected on July 1. The response was that if a copy of the policy was
requested they would provide it.

Can anyone provide any information on leaseholders rights and management
company obligations in this area. Thanks in advance

The timing is unfortunate here. It is pretty normal for Insurance
companies to change their terms, and demanding an excess of £500 is
pretty normal and does't sound excessive. Maybe the Management company
could inform you about everything that happens everywhere, and if they
did you would pay them more than £500 for doing so.

If you aren't happy with your Management Company you are probably able
to sack them (read your contract). If they are a good Management
Company who operate largely in the background, enabling you to get on
with your lives, and maybe got you cheap insurance with a company that
is paying up rather than wriggling out, you haven't done too badly.

Everyone should pay a share of the £500 excess, not just the damaged
flats. It is an overhead of the entire block.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Surely the owner of the lease of the leaking apartment carries the
liability for this damage. *Why should everyone else pay a share of
the £500?

Robert-

Because that is the only way you can properly manage a block of flats.
If the roof is leaking it is everyone's problem. When the windows need
replacing everyone's window must be replaced. Unless the guy in the
flat was negligent - and it doesn't sound like he was - it could have
happened to anyone. An insurance "excess" is a component of its
"premium" and so is an overhead to be absorbed by everyone, in my
view.

Meanwhile the block should be saving up a hefty sinking fund to deal
with problems like this when they occur. A block of people acting in
unison and with a big pot of cash are fantastically powerful and can
get anything done; a block of people squabbling about who pays what is
hell on earth.

On 24 Jul, 17:05, wrote:
On 24 Jul, 15:30, RobertL wrote:





On Jul 24, 3:20*pm, wrote:

On 23 Jul, 20:15, "BobS" wrote:

Not sure if this is the correct forum. Apologies if it isn't.

We own the lease of a ground floor apartment in a block. The block was
constructed about 4 years ago. Recently a severe water leak developed in the
apartment 3 floors above with the result that all the apartments between us
and the leak have been damaged to a greater or lesser degree.

The management company arranges the buildings insurance cover within the
maintenance cover and advises the charge in the maintenance schedule.

When we became aware of the damage being caused we advised the management
company who responded with a reference number and contact details of an
insurance broker. When contacted the broker recognised the reference number
but advised that as of July 1 2008 there was an excess of £500 payable
before their contractors would commence work. Needless to say this came a
some surprise and a question was raised with the management company.. Their
response was that due to FSA rules they couldn't advise us on the insurance!
In addition they stated that they only arranged the insurance on our behalf.

We have pointed out to the management company that we have never received
any policy document, not even a summary and have never been notified of the
change effected on July 1. The response was that if a copy of the policy was
requested they would provide it.

Can anyone provide any information on leaseholders rights and management
company obligations in this area. Thanks in advance

The timing is unfortunate here. It is pretty normal for Insurance
companies to change their terms, and demanding an excess of £500 is
pretty normal and does't sound excessive. Maybe the Management company
could inform you about everything that happens everywhere, and if they
did you would pay them more than £500 for doing so.

If you aren't happy with your Management Company you are probably able
to sack them (read your contract). If they are a good Management
Company who operate largely in the background, enabling you to get on
with your lives, and maybe got you cheap insurance with a company that
is paying up rather than wriggling out, you haven't done too badly.

Everyone should pay a share of the £500 excess, not just the damaged
flats. It is an overhead of the entire block.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Surely the owner of the lease of the leaking apartment carries the
liability for this damage. *Why should everyone else pay a share of
the £500?

Robert-

Because that is the only way you can properly manage a block of flats.
If the roof is leaking it is everyone's problem. When the windows need
replacing everyone's window must be replaced. Unless the guy in the
flat was negligent - and it doesn't sound like he was - it could have
happened to anyone. An insurance "excess" is a component of its
"premium" and so is an overhead to be absorbed by everyone, in my
view.

Meanwhile the block should be saving up a hefty sinking fund to deal
with problems like this when they occur. A block of people acting in
unison and with a big pot of cash are fantastically powerful and can
get anything done; a block of people squabbling about who pays what is
hell on earth.

The block was constructed 4 years ago and this is how I think such
communities typically develop, assuming for the sake of discussion
that this is a sizeable-ish block:

Amongst the genuine first time buyers and Maiden Aunts, there will be
people who have bought multiple flats as investments and live amongst
them - others that live elsewhere. Many of those flats will be let to
people who cause day-to-day problems.

The people who live amongst the problems need to get them sorted. This
group will band together and will set up a "Fighting Fund" later to
become the "Sinking Fund". People think that is a cost; it is the
reverse, an investment, cash in the bank.

The fund-holders engage a solicitor to buy the Freehold and now they
have control. Soon the non-freeholders realise they are second class
citizens in their own flats and cannot easily sell their flats without
regularising their leases.

At that point the original group get much of their money back from
selling shares in the freehold.

Sweet

wrote:

On 23 Jul, 20:15, "BobS" wrote:
Not sure if this is the correct forum. Apologies if it isn't.

We own the lease of a ground floor apartment in a block. The block
was constructed about 4 years ago. Recently a severe water leak
developed in the apartment 3 floors above with the result that all
the apartments between us and the leak have been damaged to a
greater or lesser degree.

The management company arranges the buildings insurance cover
within the maintenance cover and advises the charge in the
maintenance schedule.

When we became aware of the damage being caused we advised the
management company who responded with a reference number and
contact details of an insurance broker. When contacted the broker
recognised the reference number but advised that as of July 1 2008
there was an excess of £500 payable before their contractors would
commence work. Needless to say this came a some surprise and a
question was raised with the management company. Their response was
that due to FSA rules they couldn't advise us on the insurance! In
addition they stated that they only arranged the insurance on our
behalf.

We have pointed out to the management company that we have never
received any policy document, not even a summary and have never
been notified of the change effected on July 1. The response was
that if a copy of the policy was requested they would provide it.

Can anyone provide any information on leaseholders rights and
management company obligations in this area. Thanks in advance

The timing is unfortunate here. It is pretty normal for Insurance
companies to change their terms, and demanding an excess of £500 is
pretty normal and does't sound excessive. Maybe the Management company
could inform you about everything that happens everywhere, and if they
did you would pay them more than £500 for doing so.

If you aren't happy with your Management Company you are probably able
to sack them (read your contract). If they are a good Management
Company who operate largely in the background, enabling you to get on
with your lives, and maybe got you cheap insurance with a company that
is paying up rather than wriggling out, you haven't done too badly.

Everyone should pay a share of the £500 excess, not just the damaged
flats. It is an overhead of the entire block.

Thats easier said than done

--

wrote:

On 24 Jul, 17:05, wrote:
On 24 Jul, 15:30, RobertL wrote:





On Jul 24, 3:20*pm, wrote:

On 23 Jul, 20:15, "BobS" wrote:

Not sure if this is the correct forum. Apologies if it isn't.

We own the lease of a ground floor apartment in a block. The
block was constructed about 4 years ago. Recently a severe
water leak developed in the apartment 3 floors above with the
result that all the apartments between us and the leak have
been damaged to a greater or lesser degree.

The management company arranges the buildings insurance cover
within the maintenance cover and advises the charge in the
maintenance schedule.

When we became aware of the damage being caused we advised
the management company who responded with a reference number
and contact details of an insurance broker. When contacted
the broker recognised the reference number but advised that
as of July 1 2008 there was an excess of £500 payable before
their contractors would commence work. Needless to say this
came a some surprise and a question was raised with the
management company. Their response was that due to FSA rules
they couldn't advise us on the insurance! In addition they
stated that they only arranged the insurance on our behalf.

We have pointed out to the management company that we have
never received any policy document, not even a summary and
have never been notified of the change effected on July 1.
The response was that if a copy of the policy was requested
they would provide it.

Can anyone provide any information on leaseholders rights and
management company obligations in this area. Thanks in advance

The timing is unfortunate here. It is pretty normal for
Insurance companies to change their terms, and demanding an
excess of £500 is pretty normal and does't sound excessive.
Maybe the Management company could inform you about everything
that happens everywhere, and if they did you would pay them
more than £500 for doing so.

If you aren't happy with your Management Company you are
probably able to sack them (read your contract). If they are a
good Management Company who operate largely in the background,
enabling you to get on with your lives, and maybe got you cheap
insurance with a company that is paying up rather than
wriggling out, you haven't done too badly.

Everyone should pay a share of the £500 excess, not just the
damaged flats. It is an overhead of the entire block.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Surely the owner of the lease of the leaking apartment carries the
liability for this damage. *Why should everyone else pay a share
of the £500?

Robert-

Because that is the only way you can properly manage a block of
flats. If the roof is leaking it is everyone's problem. When the
windows need replacing everyone's window must be replaced. Unless
the guy in the flat was negligent - and it doesn't sound like he
was - it could have happened to anyone. An insurance "excess" is a
component of its "premium" and so is an overhead to be absorbed by
everyone, in my view.

Meanwhile the block should be saving up a hefty sinking fund to deal
with problems like this when they occur. A block of people acting in
unison and with a big pot of cash are fantastically powerful and can
get anything done; a block of people squabbling about who pays what
is hell on earth.

The block was constructed 4 years ago and this is how I think such
communities typically develop, assuming for the sake of discussion
that this is a sizeable-ish block:

Amongst the genuine first time buyers and Maiden Aunts, there will be
people who have bought multiple flats as investments and live amongst
them - others that live elsewhere. Many of those flats will be let to
people who cause day-to-day problems.

The people who live amongst the problems need to get them sorted. This
group will band together and will set up a "Fighting Fund" later to
become the "Sinking Fund". People think that is a cost; it is the
reverse, an investment, cash in the bank.

The fund-holders engage a solicitor to buy the Freehold and now they
have control. Soon the non-freeholders realise they are second class
citizens in their own flats and cannot easily sell their flats without
regularising their leases.

At that point the original group get much of their money back from
selling shares in the freehold.

Sweet

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

buying out the freehold on a sizable block can prove extremly expensive
and end up being a money pit if all leaseholders do not want to buy
into it Not for the faint hearted

--

On 23 Jul, 20:15, "BobS" wrote:
Not sure if this is the correct forum. Apologies if it isn't.

We own the lease of a ground floor apartment in a block. The block was
constructed about 4 years ago. Recently a severe water leak developed in the
apartment 3 floors above with the result that all the apartments between us
and the leak have been damaged to a greater or lesser degree.

The management company arranges the buildings insurance cover within the
maintenance cover and advises the charge in the maintenance schedule.

When we became aware of the damage being caused we advised the management
company who responded with a reference number and contact details of an
insurance broker. When contacted the broker recognised the reference number
but advised that as of July 1 2008 there was an excess of £500 payable
before their contractors would commence work. Needless to say this came a
some surprise and a question was raised with the management company. Their
response was that due to FSA rules they couldn't advise us on the insurance!
In addition they stated that they only arranged the insurance on our behalf.

We have pointed out to the management company that we have never received
any policy document, not even a summary and have never been notified of the
change effected on July 1. The response was that if a copy of the policy was
requested they would provide it.

Can anyone provide any information on leaseholders rights and management
company obligations in this area. Thanks in advance

You might be well advised also asking here.:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/

steve robinson ] said:
wrote:

The block was constructed 4 years ago and this is how I think such
communities typically develop, assuming for the sake of discussion
that this is a sizeable-ish block:

Amongst the genuine first time buyers and Maiden Aunts, there will be
people who have bought multiple flats as investments and live amongst
them - others that live elsewhere. Many of those flats will be let to
people who cause day-to-day problems.

The people who live amongst the problems need to get them sorted. This
group will band together and will set up a "Fighting Fund" later to
become the "Sinking Fund". People think that is a cost; it is the
reverse, an investment, cash in the bank.

The fund-holders engage a solicitor to buy the Freehold and now they
have control. Soon the non-freeholders realise they are second class
citizens in their own flats and cannot easily sell their flats without
regularising their leases.

At that point the original group get much of their money back from
selling shares in the freehold.

Sweet

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

buying out the freehold on a sizable block can prove extremly expensive
and end up being a money pit if all leaseholders do not want to buy
into it Not for the faint hearted

We did it - three blocks on the site, 72 flats in total, 1920's building
and I would highly recommend it. Yes, it takes organisation and a bit of
cash but being able to manage your own maintenance et all (and the
costs!) makes it worth while both practically and financially.

And of course we got our money back by selling shares and lease
extensions - in fact I think, by the time I moved, I might even of made
a profit *and* I ended up with a 999 year lease for myself at no
additional cost.

Yellow wrote:

steve robinson ] said:
wrote:

The block was constructed 4 years ago and this is how I think such
communities typically develop, assuming for the sake of discussion
that this is a sizeable-ish block:

Amongst the genuine first time buyers and Maiden Aunts, there
will be people who have bought multiple flats as investments and
live amongst them - others that live elsewhere. Many of those
flats will be let to people who cause day-to-day problems.

The people who live amongst the problems need to get them sorted.
This group will band together and will set up a "Fighting Fund"
later to become the "Sinking Fund". People think that is a cost;
it is the reverse, an investment, cash in the bank.

The fund-holders engage a solicitor to buy the Freehold and now
they have control. Soon the non-freeholders realise they are
second class citizens in their own flats and cannot easily sell
their flats without regularising their leases.

At that point the original group get much of their money back from
selling shares in the freehold.

Sweet

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

buying out the freehold on a sizable block can prove extremly
expensive and end up being a money pit if all leaseholders do not
want to buy into it Not for the faint hearted

We did it - three blocks on the site, 72 flats in total, 1920's
building and I would highly recommend it. Yes, it takes organisation
and a bit of cash but being able to manage your own maintenance et
all (and the costs!) makes it worth while both practically and
financially.

And of course we got our money back by selling shares and lease
extensions - in fact I think, by the time I moved, I might even of
made a profit and I ended up with a 999 year lease for myself at no
additional cost.

you did the right thing by moving , these things are great until you
get differing opinions between shareholders and the inevitable in
fighting and power struggles
--