• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • JB Leitch
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • JB Leitch
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / News / Do we have to replace our boilers for a £20,000 ‘repair to a modern standard’?

Do we have to replace our boilers for a £20,000 ‘repair to a modern standard’?

September 12, 2013 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

Here is a question from a reader facing a large repair bill to upgrade the heating in a London leasehold apartment block, along with LKP’s reply.

I wonder whether you or your associates might be able to advise on, or direct me to, any meaningful interpretation of the phrase “repair to a modern standard”

In 1980 I and my wife acquired a lease to our flat on the XXX Gardens Estate, in NW. The flats were constructed in 1979

Recently, the managing agent have advised of two Major Works Contracts (MWC) they plan to implement in 2014 at a combined cost to us of around £20,000.

In MWC P133B, the managing agent proposes, amongst several other items, to replace the existing Harcopak combined hot water cylinder and cold water tank located within each flat.

The managing agents claim the Harcopak units have reached the end of their useful life, as have the c/h radiators.

The replacement work involves extending the mains water service to each bathroom to serve a new Heat Interface Unit (HIU).

A further HIU seems to be required so that the separate usage of hot water and central heating water can be internally metered,  controlled and remotely monitored.

While there are other issues that may affect the matter, lessees pay for repairs but not for improvements

In a letter written by the Company Secretarial Assistant, the managing agents claim that the work identified is considered a “repair to a modern standard”.

He quotes a case heard before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal – LON/OOAG?LSC/2012?0047.

As the case was not accessible via the Google web site I had to obtain the papers from the offices of the First Tier Tribunal.

Unfortunately, the 61 pages only contain the ruling and no background information as to the reasons.

There is great doubt as to whether the Harcopak units and radiators have reached the end of their useful life, despite the report from Aecom, the Consultants used by CWH, that they have.

In the same letter  quoted above, the managing agents confirm that, out of some 290 flats containing some 1740 radiators, it has only been necessary to replace 4 Harcopak c/w tanks, 1 h/w cylinder and six radiators during the last three years. A number of lessees, including ourselves, have independently replaced the Harcopak units. I am endeavouring to find out how many have done so.

I was very impressed with your support for Dennis Jackson,

Yours, B

LKP reply

There are a couple of things you may wish to do. If the landlord has decided they need to replace these units they presumably have an independent specialist survey which recommends the actions needed. You should be able to ask for this survey. Without any specific knowledge 35 years does seem to be quite old for the sorts of radiators being installed at that time. The survey may be suggesting things could be about to get a lot worse with leaks.

You also state you have replaced the unit in your flat. I assume you are still connected to the central system but have replaced elements within your flat at your own cost. If this is the case does the proposal from the landlord intend that your equipment is replaced again and if so have you asked what the landlord needs to replace these newer units.

The next big question is do you have a recognised tenants association on the site. If not its very important you form one as soon as possible. Once you become recognised you are entitled to appoint your own surveyor (at your joint cost) he is then entitled to examine any part of the site and any part of the proposals to reach a view on the need for your systems upgrade. Once you have a document from the surveyor and IF it disputes the need for the upgrade you can advise the landlord he undertakes the work at his own risk and you reverse the right to take both a s27 action to recover monies and a s24 action to have the landlords manager replaced.

As regards the issue of “improvements” this is a thorny problem which you may want to avoid. Many leases prevent “improvements”. But the  courts rightly seem to accept updating many facilities and services do not constitute an “improvement”. For instance if your replacing old steel framed windows there is an obligation to install double glazed units. If your replacing electric cables it must be to current standard. Challenging an upgrade to a heating system unless it improved the site with radically new facilities may be difficult. The landlord will also be able to argue any new system will be more efficient save money. Even upgrading your TV aerial systems is a problem to argue. In your case the original was designed to receive 3 analogue TV channels. Any update will inevitably “improve” the number of channels available and the court is unlikely argue you should not have a digital service with a little more than three choices now that analogue has gone.

 

 

Related posts:

We have paid up for repairs to the lead water mains that doesn’t happen. We are so fed up, we are selling Michelle Baharier Philip Rainey QCSouthwark litigant-in-person leaseholder faces wipe-out after £24,000 tribunal victory. Council now deploys ‘shock and awe’ QC … Why are National Trust leaseholders in uproar over ‘modern ground rents’? Retirement housebuilders and speculators plead to be allowed ground rents in the Evening Standard Red Rock saves 156 leaseholders from £187,200 repair bill

Category: News, Q&As

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (45) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (42) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (67) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (201) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Oldies should sell up and boost retirement housing, says Demos (in report paid for by developers)
Next Post: Challenge to £100 leasehold subletting demand reveals nothing at all is owed »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Chas

    September 13, 2013 at 12:46 am

    LKP
    I note your answer to the update and the date 1979 which means that the system is 34 years old.
    One can not argue that this is a period of time that could be considered that any system would possibly be in need of updating whether it would be necessary is debatable, newer systems whilst beneficial can be a nightmare when undertaken on the larger scale?
    Having been in a position to undertake similar works the more efficient smaller replacements may be more beneficial over a period of say 2 years and then replace the main boiler once all flat replacements have been seen to work over a period of time, then the commissioning of the main boilers will be less exacting and beneficial to the residents.
    Sorry to point out that our Managing Agents Peverel Managing Services Ltd have in the past updated systems that whilst old where working very well and though more expensive per say, have been replaced by Peverel.
    For example Cirrus and the Warden Control System which was updated when only 20 years old, and was replaced by Cirrus who has been with Peverel owned up to Price Fixing for the replacement of systems that had been working?

    Recently an LVT had agreed that there was no reason to update a Warden Control System where the cost was expensive as happened and were refunded I believe £3,000.00 as the update would have been completed by a mobile phone costing £200.00 only.

    Janet any comments

    • LHA

      September 26, 2013 at 9:49 am

      Yes thats quite true as in one case we found it far far cheaper to abandon re-cabling and provide a cell phone in each flat.

  2. LHA

    September 26, 2013 at 10:03 am

    The first thing that I would do ischeck is that the units ARE the landlord’s obligation to repair (replace) ( to whatever standard) in the lease(s).

    Let’s assume that they are, and then there are two issues, one “repair” and the other “standard”
    1 do they need repair (replacing)? While yours does not ( and that’s another issue on what share, if any, you might pay for the project) it is a question of whether the other (?) original units do. That needs specialist reports which you can organise collectively (even without a RTA though its best to do so) to establish the state of repair and whether the work needs to be done now, or later on, or even if it can be phased. Aklternative maintenance strategies might be found too.
    2 As to standard then as indicated a modern equivalent replacement would not, in most cases, be an improvement. If the old units supplied adequate hot water and heating to all rooms, as the standard of heating and hot water to flats have not changed in a long long time, it unlikely that it would be an improvement or a change. Arguments might arise if say it only provided partial heating to some rooms and the work includes adding new radiators in hallways or a kitchen or bathroom, or replacing the need for additional heating such as gas/electric fires or a kitchen ascot.

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web