I wonder if anyone of you had similar experience in this and if you could offer any views on this.
Basically one leaseholder amongst 4 flats (all 4 leaseholders share the freehold of the building) demanded the rest of the leaseholders to pay for a permanent repair for a leak into their flat from the stairs at front of the building after a fix was already done to stop the leak.
My question is: how do you justify a temporary fix vs. a permanent repair request? Surely we are only obliged to fix what is leaked? Bear in mind that all of us in the building never had such requests - we always only requested fix to stop leak if there was any into our flat. Also this leaseholder has a habit of very extensive repair demands from the rest of the leaseholders - asking for entire replacement of their ceiling if there is any leak, asking for proper check of safety to their electricity if there is any leak into their flat, asking for a proper chartered surveyor to produce a report to check if there is any structure defects if there is a leak. The rest of the building are getting so weary of their demands .
Your thoughts and views would be much appreciated.
It depends on the details but if a leak fix is only considered a temporary fix and a different solution iscrequired to fix it long term I dont think they are unreasonable to request this. It is going to be cheaper long term to properly fix the issue than to keep dealing with damage caused by leaks.
I also dont think it is unreasonable to get electrics checked after a leak. It is recommended and something i would definitely do.
But the question is: who should be paying for this? We have a building insurance in place which was stated in the lease that all consequent damage from leaks in the building will be covered by the building insurance. But would the building insurance pay for this sort of electricity check by removing their entire ceiling if the insurance is only meant to pay for any damage caused by leaks ?
Depends what the lease says as to who pays. Insurance is only going to pay out based on the terms of the insurance policy so if it isnt covered by insurance and lease says it is split between all leaseholders then you all need to pay.
It isnt necessay to take ceiling down to check electrics. Electrician would be able to use their tools to assess is any damage done to electrical circuits without removing ceiling. They can normally do this is around 10 minutes so you are only paying their call out charge.
The lease does not say who pays, it only says service charge should cover building insurance to cover any damage caused by leaks in the building including from boilers and pipes from individual flats.
I would go through the insurance. That way it will be clear and official as to what the individual leaseholder should pay, if anything. Unless the leak was caused by the negligence of one or more of the other leaseholders, they have no legal liability unless there is something very odd in the lease.
There are also other reasons to do this, such as the potential for problems if the insurer is not notified of the leak and any works. Also any leaseholders subletting would not be able to offset the costs of repairs against tax for a problem that could be covered by insurance.
def wont need whole ceiling removed to check electric circuits - that’s utter nonsense
check your freeholder responsibilities in lease - often includes building insurance and obligation for maintaining fabric and structure in good repair eg external decoration, roof repairs/replacement, communal areas sometimes also the windows. Insurance won’t cover unless due to eg storm damage. As freeholders whether you replace something with new, do a series of temporary repairs or a better more permanent repair is entirely up to you 4 to agree. But if you dont do repairs/maintenance properly and that results in subsequent damage, insurance def wont cover
meet all freeholders every year to discuss & agree approach to repairs/maintenance - harder to ‘demand’ things while face to face. If all 3 of you tell flat owner they are being unreasonable and you won’t pay for unnecessary surveys what can they do?
Get electrician to check circuits near the leak. 1-2h work max 150quid not worth arguing over should have been done originally if leak was anywhere near a circuit. If it wasnt and there’s nothing to worry about the leaseholder can pay to check if they want to. Don’t agree to surveyor unless proper reason given. Eg photos of rusting ceiling supports or other evidence there is a structural issue. Ask contractor who did temporary repair if any further structural repairs needed. And/or a good builder can advise. Excessive to get surveyor reports for every leak
Insurance often does not cover roof leaks unless it is from storm damage, and they are very specific about the definitions, i.e. how fast the wind was blowing that particular day. Insurance coverage will be specific to your policy. If it isn’t covered by the policy then someone has to pay. If it also isn’t covered by the leaseholder agreement, then you can do nothign and let them try to sue you. But I would be surprised if the lease said nothing because there are always non-insurance covered maintenance or improvement jobs that need doing, perhaps you need to re-read it. If it is silent then it is really a majority rules situation, if the other three leaseholders have done what a reasonable person acting as a common leaseholder would do, which is to fix the leak at lowest cost (although I am a bit doubtful about what this really means, you don’t provide any numbers so it is hard to say) then let them go ahead and sue the three of you. I don’t think their claim would have any basis unless there was actual damage. To sue someone you need to sue FOR something, i.e. damages.
There’s not enough information here it’s a comment. It’s not clear what you’re set up is you keep speaking about four leaseholders? Are you the freeholder? Do you all have equal shares of a freehold? Do you have a deed of trust between you or is it a free for all because if it’s a Free for all it just takes one person to say we’re not doing it to stop the whole process with a fair or not.
You must give more information. He could always make Claims on his own Insurance.. and you all could agree to pay him his deductible? You will could agree that everyone has to have contents insurance which would cover damage that insurance company could then go after the freehold of course.
You will could agree that everyone has to have contents insurance which would cover damage that insurance company could then go after the freehold of course.
The contractor who did the fix did not think it was a temp fix otherwise the contractor would have told the building management who arranged the work so. Its the leaseholder whose flat the leak was into asked for a so called ‘permanent‘ fix and to our knowledge it is not necessary if the fix was good enough to stop the leak and has not re-occured after one and half years so far.
Doesn’t sound like anything more permanent is needed. Just refuse on the basis current repair has worked no further issues being caused. If 4th flat owner/share of freeholder has concerns over current repair longevity they should have raised at time it was done or only if causing a problem subsequently, via the mgt Co, and ensured a suitable guarantee was provided by contractor.
Be plain when speaking to them - there is no current leak and if there was one they should raise via mgt Co who will use contractor gtee. They are wasting your time. Tell them if they continue to do so with vexatious requests you will ask the mgt Co to invoice them for the time spent.
Thank you very much David240 for your thoughtful advice. Unfortunately the rest of the building is dealing with a very unreasonable leaseholder here who actually forced out the previous leaseholder above them because they were so unreasonable and the previous leaseholder above them did not want to deal with them anymore and sold the flat.
@Helen2023 well they can’t force you to spend £ on unnecessary repairs so maybe just ignore. But I sympathize, bad neighbours (of whatever sort) are a stressful nightmare.
If they persistent, visit them with other neighbours till they answer to explain they are being unreasonable in making vexatious requests to carry out unnecessary repairs and tell them to send all correspondence to the mgt Co in future.
If they still persist get Mgt co to send them a strongly worded legal letter indicating that their behaviour is causing a nuisance to other leaseholders and that if they continue they will be in breach of their lease and will be reported to the local authorities.