Help needed for a reader
I would appreciate some views on the issue of s11 notices under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, please. I have looked through the LKP site and cannot find anything that covers these two issues and indeed cannot find anything elsewhere on the internet. I’m happy to have the questions and any views on the LKP site if you think that it would be helpful to others.
Enfranchisement –response of Freeholder to s11 notice
I live on a private leasehold estate where there are approx. 190 flats in five separate low rise blocks, many now owned by absent leaseholder landlords and occupied by shorthold tenants. The Freeholder and property managers fall into the category of – well, let’s be diplomatic and say unsatisfactory. For example they ridiculously threatened me with proceedings under the Protection from Harassment Act if I do not stop documenting problems at the Estate with them – the emails have always been polite and proportionate and needless to add when challenged they were unable to produce a single item that was abusive, threatening, or in any way “harassment”. They also threatened me with a defamation action but again, predictably, were unable to produce a single defamatory statement by me, especially as I had taken a lot of contemporaneous photographic evidence which supported my concerns.
There is no residents association and numerous past attempts by a small group of leaseholder occupiers to set one up have all failed. The freeholder and managing agents have never held a communal meeting and have always refused to give contact details for leaseholders when we have previously attempted to set up a means of communication amongst leaseholders, and refused to inform other leaseholders that they could contact me if they wished to be copied in to communal emails. Land Registry searches for ownership details for that amount of flats would have been financially prohibitive.
The lease and deeds give each leaseholder the right to use all of the grounds in the Estate.
I recently served a s11 notice on the Freeholder, who has responded insisting that I am entitled only to the names and addresses of the 39 leaseholders within my own block.
Am I wrongly interpreting the Act? (Quite possibly as the drafting is not easily understood)
s1’s wording that “any property not comprised in the relevant premises but to which this paragraph applies by virtue of subsection (3)…….
Subsection (2)(a) applies to any property if F1. . . at the relevant date either—
(a)it is appurtenant property which is demised by the lease held by a qualifying tenant of a flat contained in the relevant premises; or
(b)it is property which any such tenant is entitled under the terms of the lease of his flat to use in common with the occupiers of other premises (whether those premises are contained in the relevant premises or not)….
In this section—
“appurtenant property”, in relation to a flat, means any garage, outhouse, garden, yard or appurtenances belonging to, or usually enjoyed with, the flat; ”
And s2’s wording
(a)any common parts of the relevant premises, or
(b)any property falling within section 1(2)(a) which is to be acquired by virtue of that provision,
where the acquisition of that interest is reasonably necessary for the proper management or maintenance of those common parts, or (as the case may be) that property, on behalf of the tenants by whom the right to collective enfranchisement is exercised. “
suggest to me that collective enfranchisement of the entire Estate should be possible and not just of the block in which I live. Indeed I cannot follow how it would be possible to enfranchise just my block and yet acquire the common parts i.e. the grounds.
To attempt to enfranchise the entire Estate, I would of course require the names and addresses of all leaseholders.
Data Protection Act issues
The other issue I would appreciate a view on is the Data Protection Act issue. As a visually impaired person, I have requested as a reasonable disability adjustment that the information be sent to me by email. The Freeholder has refused this on the basis that it would breach the Data Protection Act and in order to send it by email he would have to first obtain the consent of every leaseholder (in the case of my block, 39 leaseholders) which would not be reasonable or proportionate. Given that the information requested is the same as that held in the public domain at the Land Registry which offers an online service, I cannot follow the Freeholder’s reasoning.
Any insights or views on either issue appreciated.
Many thanks
Jan
Related posts:
Prostitutes breach leasehold covenants concerning ‘persons of immoral life’
Answer to a parliamentary question about Leasehold Valuation Tribunals … 189 irrelevant documents
Even if you only respond to one question, take part in the Law Commission consultation!
Grenfell cladding crisis prompts the question: what are freeholders actually for?
Cladding victims unimpressed by Robert Jenrick on BBC1’s Question Time
AgeUK to wind down retirement leasehold service
To take the simplest problem first: take a copy of the printout from the landlord and scan it to PDF (which is easily done) and then use an online PDF to Word converter to get into electronic format, or just retype it. Disputation on this point is not likely to be useful. The law doesn’t prescribe a right to have the data in any particular form so the landlord can comply however he wishes. The inconvenience of retyping is nothing compared to the inconvenience of not having the information.
The next thing to do is to set up a private web site for owners of the block you live in and begin the long slog of getting the rest of the owners enrolled to use it. Start with your own block so that there is some useful content there. You do not want people joining, finding there’s nothing there and then abandoning it. Once that’s up and running and populated with useful content the next step is to produce a flyer with a link to an online survey (easily done with a gmail account and google docs — at no cost). Distribute these to the other blocks. You will likely get responses and can then ask the respondents to file Section 11 requests for their blocks. You can then send correctly addressed letters to the owners. Bit by bit you will succeed. Sooner or later you will have complete information, a mailing list, an email list, and a majority in favour of acquiring the right to manage or the freehold, or both. But there’s no reason not to proceed ASAP with RTM at your block and demonstrating the benefits to others.
You might get more comprehensive comment using the forum function here or sites like landlord zone and its long leasehold subforum, or MSE.
From Jan
Thank you for the replies and useful suggestions so far.
I’m aware that the refusal to comply with the request under the Equality Act for a reasonable disability adjustment can be dealt with in practical terms by my undertaking procedures to transfer the data to my lap top myself, but the Freeholder is obliged by law to adhere to the Equality Act unless he can show good cause not to do so. Also, that task will cause me considerable time consuming difficulty because of my disabilities, as the Freeholder is fully aware
Hence my query as to whether his excuse that the Data Protection Act prevents communicating this information by email actually has any legal validity.
Also, although I am aware that I can seek the data on other leaseholders in other blocks via applications from individual leaseholders within those blocks, there is a general legal issue arising from s11 procedures that needs to be addressed regarding the right to obtain all the information directly from the Freeholder.
There are also a number of practical difficulties in bringing in others before anything is set up about generally consulting all the other leaseholders.
The Freeholder and property managers of my Estate are deliberately being evasive and unco-operative, as the vast majority of Freeholders and property managers can be expected to be. For example, their past behaviour in making empty threats about action against me under the Protection from Harassment Act to try to prevent me from documenting problems at the Estate with them, is a tactic that is used widely against leaseholders. I was having a phone discussion just a week ago with another contributor to this site who lives elsewhere in the UK and had received a letter from his Freeholder which threatened to report him to the police if he didn’t stop raising issues about mismanagement. Another example of the type of nonsense that these people come out with is that the Freeholder of my Estate has repeatedly claimed that he has no legal responsibility whatsoever for anything that goes on here. I’ve also been told that I have no right to comment on things like a damp problem in the building entrance hall because I have no legal right to raise issues about the state of maintenance of anything outside the four walls of my flat – again utter nonsense.
So if it is possible to clarify the actual legal position about any issues where freeholders and property managers are being deliberately deceitful, obstructive or evasive, it is worthwhile to do so.
The Freeholder of my Estate has now sent the information for my block to me by post, incidentally, after first trying to impose restrictions on me and being told by me that he had no legal basis to do so as the legislation does not specify the form that the s11 application must take before the Freeholder has to release the requested information. One absurd allegation he made was that I intended to use the information to take legal action against the other leaseholders. Needless to add, when asked by me what litigation he thought that I might be contemplating, he was unable to respond..
As enfranchisement of your block, or even the whole estate through a series of notices will involve consderable purchase and legal and professional costs to the particpating leaseholders, have you considered seeking the appointment via the LVT of an “independant” manager for your block?
As that will deal with immediate issues for you by removing the FH/MA’s control, the benefits it should provide could lead to interest among other block to “extend/duplicate” that remit. Their involvement could help with the tackling of issues and costs that affect the non block estate costs.
This may be easier than right to manage or your “rte” concept as only one leaseholder, but ideally as many as you can get involved, can apply for the appointment.