Live issues – 28 Highlighting the challenges for leaseholder recovery and how they could be avoided The need for materials guarantees and proper maintenance A working group member was involved with a package of external works proposed to an apartment block carried out under a qualifying long-term agreement (contractor partnering framework). The feasibility report outlined flat roof covering would be replaced owing to its condition. A Section 20 notice of intention was issued to various leaseholders on the block on this basis. The procedures of the client in this scenario are that an initial bill for the works is issued at the same time as the notice of intention, charging leaseholders for the works based on the initial estimated scope of works with the final bill being issued at agreement of the final account. One leaseholder challenged this proposal upon receipt of his initial bill as he recalled paying towards new roof coverings which included a 10-year materials guarantee, less than 10 years earlier. The freeholder was unable to produce the guarantee paperwork, and in any event, had carried out no maintenance to the roof so the guarantee would have been invalidated. As a result, the cost of the roof works could not be reclaimed. The key message for social landlords is that they must be rigorous in their keeping and filing of maintenance paperwork as the costs of re-charging qualifying works can only be claimed where the building has been adequately maintained. Additionally, recharge would have been possible had the leaseholder not raised the challenge. Charging leaseholders for work they do not feel is required A working group member’s window-replacement project in an apartment block hit problems when leaseholders objected to being charged. Although the windows maintained by the freeholder were mostly in a poor condition, some leaseholders had maintained theirs well and they were in significantly better condition. The leaseholders claim it’s unfair to have to pay towards the costs of new windows. Again, this case underlines the problems that can arise if buildings are not maintained. We anticipate this one will go to a first-tier tribunal. Charging leaseholders for others’ entry-phones A door entry-phone system was installed in an apartment block and the leaseholders were charged an equal portion of the costs. However, a number of ground floor flats had their own front entrance door leading directly to public space, not to a communal area, so were not served by the new entry phone system. A leaseholder in the block challenged successfully that no one should pay towards a door entry-phone where no system is installed to their apartment. Apportioning costs can be a minefield. Housing associations always need to be aware that leaseholders are looking to be treated fairly and reasonably and looking for good value for money.
29 Publizr Home