Question 1

Garage Repairs

Accepted Answer

Garage Repairs Q: Our managing agent has asked me to refer this matter to you for guidance. We are a block of 16 flats. In 2017 we asked the agent to arrange the redecoration of the garage doors. In getting the estimates, some contractors suggested replacing the gutters with new gutters and providing UPVC fascias. We agreed this would be a better longer-term solution. The agent sent us the estimates in September and the work began in October. On the first day, all residents had to give their garage keys to the contractor. My fellow director asked about the gutters and fascias and it became clear that the decorator was not intending to install UPVC fascias and that he was a subcontractor of the firm the agent had engaged. The director produced the quote and the subcontractor said it was unlikely that this could be the right price. The subcontractor offered to stop the job immediately but he managing agent was on site and he instructed them to continue. It transpired that the managing agent had made a mistake. The contractor had previously made an error and had revised his price but the agent had used the original quote when sending us the quotes. This left us with several problems:

• The original quote for the entire job was £2995+VAT so below the threshold of £4000 for consultation. • The decorator painted the doors and frames but left the wooden fascias sanded back and exposed. We chased the property manager several times and a few months later the agent told us they wanted to pay the contractor. We refused on the basis that the job was not complete, that the agent had not agreed a price for the work they had done and that we wanted the whole job completed as swiftly as possible and would pay at the end. It later transpired that the agent did make a partial payment from our account in April (in our new tax year so it was not evident until the AGM in December 2018). • The work is still not complete. The agent has found a contractor to do the fascias for £1700 but they want to pay the original contractor £2826 (including VAT) so together this would require us to have gone to consultation. We are concerned that the works cannot be considered separate projects and that we could face problems if this were challenged.

FPRA Hon Consultant Matthew Lewis replies: 1. As for the consultation point, I agree that if the costs exceed more than £250 per leaseholder consultation should be conducted. Here, as the combined costs exceed £250, i.e. £4,526, I consider there is a risk that the figure in excess of the ‘triviality threshold’, is irrecoverable from the leaseholders, i.e. the £526, or c.£32 per leaseholder. 2. It may be that a separate question could be what the correct price would have been payable for the job as a whole if it were tendered as a whole job. To me it appears the facts may have led to an increase in the costs, where two contractors have ended up doing the work, but there may have been economies if the job as a whole was tendered. 3. Without seeing all of the communications and advising on the law surrounding the agency relationship we are unable to comment on whether or not the managing agent is responsible but you may wish to investigate that. If you are concerned about the managing agents conduct, I would suggest raising that with them first. If you remain concerned, after that discussion (and any agreed action), they may have an internal complaints process (within their terms) which you should follow. Ultimately, if you remain concerned after exploring and following those steps, you may have a right to complain to another body. For more detail, the Leasehold Advisory Service have a helpful note here: https://www.lease-advice.org/article/property-management-redress-schemes-what-leaseholders-need-to-know/. [Submitted March 2019]

Question 2

Garage Repairs

Accepted Answer

Garage Repairs Q: Our managing agent has asked me to refer this matter to you for guidance. We are a block of 16 flats. In 2017 we asked the agent to arrange the redecoration of the garage doors. In getting the estimates, some contractors suggested replacing the gutters with new gutters and providing UPVC fascias. We agreed this would be a better longer-term solution. The agent sent us the estimates in September and the work began in October. On the first day, all residents had to give their garage keys to the contractor. My fellow director asked about the gutters and fascias and it became clear that the decorator was not intending to install UPVC fascias and that he was a subcontractor of the firm the agent had engaged. The director produced the quote and the subcontractor said it was unlikely that this could be the right price. The subcontractor offered to stop the job immediately but he managing agent was on site and he instructed them to continue. It transpired that the managing agent had made a mistake. The contractor had previously made an error and had revised his price but the agent had used the original quote when sending us the quotes. This left us with several problems:

• The original quote for the entire job was £2995+VAT so below the threshold of £4000 for consultation. • The decorator painted the doors and frames but left the wooden fascias sanded back and exposed. We chased the property manager several times and a few months later the agent told us they wanted to pay the contractor. We refused on the basis that the job was not complete, that the agent had not agreed a price for the work they had done and that we wanted the whole job completed as swiftly as possible and would pay at the end. It later transpired that the agent did make a partial payment from our account in April (in our new tax year so it was not evident until the AGM in December 2018). • The work is still not complete. The agent has found a contractor to do the fascias for £1700 but they want to pay the original contractor £2826 (including VAT) so together this would require us to have gone to consultation. We are concerned that the works cannot be considered separate projects and that we could face problems if this were challenged.

FPRA Hon Consultant Matthew Lewis replies: 1. As for the consultation point, I agree that if the costs exceed more than £250 per leaseholder consultation should be conducted. Here, as the combined costs exceed £250, i.e. £4,526, I consider there is a risk that the figure in excess of the ‘triviality threshold’, is irrecoverable from the leaseholders, i.e. the £526, or c.£32 per leaseholder. 2. It may be that a separate question could be what the correct price would have been payable for the job as a whole if it were tendered as a whole job. To me it appears the facts may have led to an increase in the costs, where two contractors have ended up doing the work, but there may have been economies if the job as a whole was tendered. 3. Without seeing all of the communications and advising on the law surrounding the agency relationship we are unable to comment on whether or not the managing agent is responsible but you may wish to investigate that. If you are concerned about the managing agents conduct, I would suggest raising that with them first. If you remain concerned, after that discussion (and any agreed action), they may have an internal complaints process (within their terms) which you should follow. Ultimately, if you remain concerned after exploring and following those steps, you may have a right to complain to another body. For more detail, the Leasehold Advisory Service have a helpful note here: https://www.lease-advice.org/article/property-management-redress-schemes-what-leaseholders-need-to-know/. [Submitted March 2019]

Garage Repairs

Search

Articles Archive