Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Labour have nothing to do with it uncle. The rules on leaseholding are set in law under RTB1 (brought in by the Tories if you had conveniently forgotten that). If you buy a council leasehold, you do so knowing you will be charged for communal works.


And there are leaseholder organisations that do challenge the sums charged and hold them to account, so as usual you are talking out of your a@@.

I'm not getting into this with you Uncle. RTB1 was introduced by a Thatcher government under THEIR terms. Nowhere did the Labour manifesto stop the councils being able to use the money from the sales to build or buy more housing. We are where we are now because of that Tory governments deliberate policy of selling off homes and blocking their replacement, end of.


Just as the rules on RTB1 were set by that same government, end of.

A relative owns a flat in a council block that has central heating with a boiler in the basement and supplies all the flats. The council replaced the system and my relative's share was divided up into instalments payable over several years. Obviously the central heating benefits everyone. Someone else I know lives in a block of social housing and privately owned, and the water bill for the whole block is divided up equally amongst each flat- even though there are singles, childless couples, and people with families at home all day...

The council have got to deal with this

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-owed-millions-in-rent-arrears-every-year/

Generating parking fines won't do it- so they will fleece anyone who is a sitting duck

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In some cases people living in blocks are having

> to pay for Lift servicing and Maintenance ..

> ... even when they have a Ground Flour flat..

>

> DulwichFox



That is very unfair for those living in ground flour flats. Surely they already have enough troubles as it is with rain etc.

An annual service charge is a better way to manage these costs - build a pot for a rainy day - the council presumably didn't do that?


When you buy from an old council block you must wonder how many potential problems have been built up over the years of possible neglect that could hit pretty hard at some point.


Hopefully she has at least had decent capital growth during the period - not that this helps pay - I'd say fight it - say it relates to deterioration that arose mainly prior to her ownership and that she's only responsible for a small proportion of the costs.


Of course if she doesn't pay - I guess the normal council tax payer fits the bill for the balance - so no one wins.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> An annual service charge is a better way to manage

> these costs - build a pot for a rainy day - the

> council presumably didn't do that?

>



A sink fund is advisable :)


Surely an estimate should have been done BEFORE the work - the council might

have chosen their mate to do the work at double cost for all you know. I'd want

to go through what work was done and who did it.

Lots of us have owned flats in old buildings - period apartment blocks or converted Victorian houses. Yes they have problems and sometimes you need to fork out. But why is it that time and time again, we hear that Southwark have billed their leaseholders amounts that are almost unheard of by the rest of us? 16K PER FLAT for new electrics?


There is something really dodgy going on. Are private owners paying for maintenance of the whole block? Do Southwark always use the same contractors, or are large jobs like this put out to tender? Is the process transparent?

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lots of us have owned flats in old buildings -

> period apartment blocks or converted Victorian

> houses. Yes they have problems and sometimes you

> need to fork out.


Don't you think ex council are more likely to have been poorly maintained in the past - hence a potential build up of problems?

Steveo - feel for you and yours..something isn't right... As Landlords/Freeholders Southwark are required to go through a specific process when it comes to announcing/tendering for works. Do you know if this was completed properly?


We (owners of 5 flats in a Victorian building) were presented with frankly criminal costs by the then managing agent.. when we question them about the process (which they neglected) they were forced to pick up some of that cost as a result. We immediately asked for a sinking fund to be instituted, then broke the chains of bondage and obtained Right to Manage (RTM). This has got to be the way to go for smaller developments/buildings. I can appreciate larger estates that would be onerous to manage, but not impossible with the right support.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't you think ex council are more likely to have

> been poorly maintained in the past - hence a

> potential build up of problems?


Well no, not necessarily. And it still wouldn't justify the magnitude of the outrageous bills you see mentioned on here from time to time...

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > Lots of us have owned flats in old buildings -

> > period apartment blocks or converted Victorian

> > houses. Yes they have problems and sometimes you

> > need to fork out.

>

> Don't you think ex council are more likely to have

> been poorly maintained in the past - hence a

> potential build up of problems?


Possibly, but ?16k is way overpriced to even have the whole thing rewired completely.

I seem to remember a similar thread on here a while back - when leaseholders looked into the bills received / asked for a schedule of works, if I remember rightly, it was clear that some of the work that was represented to the council as being carried out had not been carried out at all.


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1216858,1635601#msg-1635601

At least for privately owned flats, the management company / landlord has to serve a section 20 notice. it basically states the intention to tender major works, and then again, once quotes have been received, the landlord would send out the details to say which company will be undertaking the work and at what cost. I am not sure why it would be any different to ex-council flats?


Basically, any major works which would cost the leaseholder ?250 or more in the year - the leaseholder would have to be consulted under section 20. May be worth looking into as to whether your girlfriend was consulted?


Note that you also have the right to request further detail of the spend your girlfriend is being asked to pay.


http://www.lease-advice.org/information/faqs/faq.asp?item=173


I am not a solicitor so may be wrong - but worth looking into the above. It definitely applies to leaseholders of private landlords.

Mrs D Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At least for privately owned flats, the management company / landlord has to serve a section 20 notice.

> it basically states the intention to tender major works, and then again, once quotes have been received,

> the landlord would send out the details to say which company will be undertaking the work and at what

> cost. I am not sure why it would be any different to ex-council flats?


I don't think it is any different. Local authority/public sector landlords have to serve Section 20 notices.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Since you’re clearly not experiencing what we are I’m not sure I agree with any of your points. I also asked for anyone else having a similar problem… it’s absolutely fine if you’re not but I’d appreciate less of the “go live your life”. There is no need to comment with that tone, it doesn’t provide us with any help for the matter. Nor is it polite. We’re a very kind family simply not wanting damage and don’t find the actions necessary. It’s been the same driver/delivery for a while and this never used to happen. I wouldn’t post this on the forum if it wasn’t getting so frustrating. Again, the kids and myself have kindly asked for this to stop a few times with no success. We all work hard for our living and would never want (nor are we trying) to rid someone of their livelihood. But similarly, I don’t find it fair. Please feel free to PM me if anyone has any advise or shares the same.  
    • And now we have the worst labour government in many many decades who, by moving to your position on the right, are ushering in a far right reform government. Well done you.
    • You implied he did a good job in your first paragraph when you said you would have hated to see Corbyn lead the country through Covid - the alternative being Johnson, presumably? With the results we all saw. Unite - you have a problem with unions? Who work hard to see that their members get a fair deal in their workplace? How exactly are these people and groups "all as bad as each other"? In what way? Labour "purging their party of the far-left" has given us a weak prime minister who has apparently deserted any "left" (aka caring for other people and having decent moral principles) leanings he ever had. Which is why people appear to be leaving Labour in droves and voting, or intending to vote, Green or Lib Dem or for an independent Left candidate. Starmer has shot himself in the foot, in my opinion. But what would I know. What worked?! I don't know enough about what you are talking about to comment, but "believing" you know the reason someone did something does not make it true. I don't believe that Corbyn ever got "starstruck" or "forgot about his politics", but if you can provide evidence that those things are true, then fair enough. I don't think you can, though.
    • I think you need to get a grip If it's who I am thinking of, she's a young black girl in her twenties, has braids with bright colours through them and - I suspect - works with her father. It's always the same man behind the wheel and he's older than her, always in the same van, so I'm assuming it's a father-daughter combo which, if it is, I think is rather sweet.  They hustle hard in a job that is poorly paid, has little prospects, is relentless and thankless. The fact that they have stuck it out since the pandemic says a lot about them.  I think she's a lovely girl, who's perhaps a little shy - but she'll smile or chat back if you make the effort with her. And I admire her for sticking with that job for so long. Perhaps she's just one of these people who's naturally a bit clumsy or bashes things, the same way some people are heavy on their feet when they walk. But I wouldn't dream of jeopardising her job because she closes the slams the gate and doesn't 'kiss' the ring doorbell with her fingers.  Perhaps she's being passive aggressive because you are. And perhaps she also wishes she got to spend her time worrying about potential damage to her letterbox or her gate.  As for your gate / letterbox - you're talking about hypotheticals. Has there been any damage? No. Then go and live your life and worry about it when it happens.  (apols we have the wrong person, but some of my points still stand). 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...