Question 1

Row over Replacement Windows

Accepted Answer

Q: In March 2016 we were informed of issues with PCV windows to one flat of the block of which I am a Director of the RMT which is self-managed by the flat leaseholders. We made enquires to LEASE and FPRA between April and June about conditions within our lease to clarify our responsibilities towards maintenance of windows and glass within. During this period, the flat leaseholder obtained quotes for repair and renewal of the two windows under consideration. Upon clarification by LEASE & FPRA we provided advise to the leaseholder of lease conditions (glass responsibility of leaseholder, windows responsibility of RMT and covered by service charge) and recommended that we undertake repairs to the windows by email on 18 July 2016. By this time the leaseholder was very keen to see the both windows replaced with new (based on advice from numerous salesman of the new windows quotes). We have explained to the leaseholder that, rightly or wrongly, no allowance had been included within the current service charge level, and a large number of the windows could be in the same condition (all roughly installed in 1988). It was further recommended to all leaseholders that a survey of all the building windows would need to be undertaken and an acceptable plan put in place and hence, repair only seemed to be the sensible option at this time. The leaseholder disagreed with this decision and stated he was getting his own legal opinion. The Leaseholder has approached LEASE separately (to which we have provided details and encouraged) between July to November 2016, BUT claiming that the RMT is refusing to repair the windows and based on this received the following advice on 11 November 2016 as a remedy (email attached):- 1) Inform the RMT of your intention to take this form of action if the repairs complained of are not carried out, 2) Allow reasonable time to comply with repair obligations, 3) Obtain estimates for cost of remedial works, 4) Engage contractor, 5) Submit contractor invoice to RMT, 6) If no money is forthcoming, recoup the cost of the works by deducting it from future service charge payment. On the 11 Dec 2016 we met as a group of leaseholders representing six of the eight flats including the leaseholder of the flat affected by all the above. We discussed and agreed to undertake a survey of some PVC windows within building as a sample of costs/conditions, prepare a plan to review whole asset condition, seek professional advice on alternative materials and the leaseholder of the flat agreed to only undertake repairs to two windows in the flat as a short term solution. On 14 Dec 2016 the leaseholder emailed the RMT his own estimates of repairs and stating he had found a renewals quote for windows that he believes to be better value for money (getting the new windows he wants), stated that he can no longer wait and has instructed contractor without approval of the RMT. When challenged that costs for renewal of windows to his flat against the agreement with other leaseholders or the authority of the RMT would be at his own risk, he has claimed the legal advice provided by LEASE as his defence and method for recovering his costs by subtracting from future service charges (paid monthly). We believe we have acted in a timely manner and in the best interests of the building landlord, conditions of the lease and interests of all leaseholders. We have highlighted to the leaseholder that we also believe he has misrepresented himself to LEASE and also not acted in accordance with the advice provided by LEASE. Unfortunately, as we are self managed and not professional agents, we are at a loss. 1) What have we done wrong and how could we correct it? 2) Generally correspondence has been via email and verbally at meeting (I didn't even get a chance to issue meeting minutes). How do we proceed now? Should we be issuing some formal notice to the leaseholder about planned works? Please note value of works is only £400-800 (below the Section 20 requirements or written notice for block of 8 flats). Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Stuart Merrison replies: On review of the papers provided I can see that advice has previously been given on this. Which I do not seek to add to here. In terms of the current situation the issue appears to centre on whether or not there has been undue delay. Under the terms of the lease set off is prohibited. It does seem to me that, despite the alleged delay over the summer, the process of obtaining quotes and moving the matter forward is now firmly under way. It may be appropriate to minute that meeting (at which the particular leaseholder was present) and circulate those minutes to show precisely what has been agreed and the relevant timescale. The leaseholder cannot therefore claim that the process is not being attended to. If this particular leaseholder does proceed as threatened then it would be open to the company to sue them for trespass and damages in respect of the window frames and also for payment of unpaid service charge. [Submitted December 2016]

Question 2

Row over Replacement Windows

Accepted Answer

Q: In March 2016 we were informed of issues with PCV windows to one flat of the block of which I am a Director of the RMT which is self-managed by the flat leaseholders. We made enquires to LEASE and FPRA between April and June about conditions within our lease to clarify our responsibilities towards maintenance of windows and glass within. During this period, the flat leaseholder obtained quotes for repair and renewal of the two windows under consideration. Upon clarification by LEASE & FPRA we provided advise to the leaseholder of lease conditions (glass responsibility of leaseholder, windows responsibility of RMT and covered by service charge) and recommended that we undertake repairs to the windows by email on 18 July 2016. By this time the leaseholder was very keen to see the both windows replaced with new (based on advice from numerous salesman of the new windows quotes). We have explained to the leaseholder that, rightly or wrongly, no allowance had been included within the current service charge level, and a large number of the windows could be in the same condition (all roughly installed in 1988). It was further recommended to all leaseholders that a survey of all the building windows would need to be undertaken and an acceptable plan put in place and hence, repair only seemed to be the sensible option at this time. The leaseholder disagreed with this decision and stated he was getting his own legal opinion. The Leaseholder has approached LEASE separately (to which we have provided details and encouraged) between July to November 2016, BUT claiming that the RMT is refusing to repair the windows and based on this received the following advice on 11 November 2016 as a remedy (email attached):- 1) Inform the RMT of your intention to take this form of action if the repairs complained of are not carried out, 2) Allow reasonable time to comply with repair obligations, 3) Obtain estimates for cost of remedial works, 4) Engage contractor, 5) Submit contractor invoice to RMT, 6) If no money is forthcoming, recoup the cost of the works by deducting it from future service charge payment. On the 11 Dec 2016 we met as a group of leaseholders representing six of the eight flats including the leaseholder of the flat affected by all the above. We discussed and agreed to undertake a survey of some PVC windows within building as a sample of costs/conditions, prepare a plan to review whole asset condition, seek professional advice on alternative materials and the leaseholder of the flat agreed to only undertake repairs to two windows in the flat as a short term solution. On 14 Dec 2016 the leaseholder emailed the RMT his own estimates of repairs and stating he had found a renewals quote for windows that he believes to be better value for money (getting the new windows he wants), stated that he can no longer wait and has instructed contractor without approval of the RMT. When challenged that costs for renewal of windows to his flat against the agreement with other leaseholders or the authority of the RMT would be at his own risk, he has claimed the legal advice provided by LEASE as his defence and method for recovering his costs by subtracting from future service charges (paid monthly). We believe we have acted in a timely manner and in the best interests of the building landlord, conditions of the lease and interests of all leaseholders. We have highlighted to the leaseholder that we also believe he has misrepresented himself to LEASE and also not acted in accordance with the advice provided by LEASE. Unfortunately, as we are self managed and not professional agents, we are at a loss. 1) What have we done wrong and how could we correct it? 2) Generally correspondence has been via email and verbally at meeting (I didn't even get a chance to issue meeting minutes). How do we proceed now? Should we be issuing some formal notice to the leaseholder about planned works? Please note value of works is only £400-800 (below the Section 20 requirements or written notice for block of 8 flats). Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Stuart Merrison replies: On review of the papers provided I can see that advice has previously been given on this. Which I do not seek to add to here. In terms of the current situation the issue appears to centre on whether or not there has been undue delay. Under the terms of the lease set off is prohibited. It does seem to me that, despite the alleged delay over the summer, the process of obtaining quotes and moving the matter forward is now firmly under way. It may be appropriate to minute that meeting (at which the particular leaseholder was present) and circulate those minutes to show precisely what has been agreed and the relevant timescale. The leaseholder cannot therefore claim that the process is not being attended to. If this particular leaseholder does proceed as threatened then it would be open to the company to sue them for trespass and damages in respect of the window frames and also for payment of unpaid service charge. [Submitted December 2016]

Row over Replacement Windows

Search

Articles Archive