A leasehold owning couple who spent a miserable Christmas last year with a hole in the roof are in the same position this year.
Water is pouring down the couple’s bedroom walls and the carpet is saturated. The only difference this year is that squirrels are not rampaging through the roof.
Temporary repairs carried out by Peverel at 14-flat Crowthorne Lodge, in Bracknell, Berkshire, have been ineffectual owing to the stormy weather.
For months, AdeOluwa Bankole, 38, who works in BHS, and his wife Otitokan Oluwo, 35, who works in IT, have been urging Peverel to act to repair the roof.
Earlier this year it required an article and photographs of missing roof tiles on the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership website to get Peverel to act.
The second stage of a leasehold section 20 consultation ends on January 18 2014 for major works.
But there is no explanation why these works, which have been discussed since last June, have taken so long.
Leasehold owner Bankole, who bought his £134,000 flat in 2012, was desperately contacting Peverel on Christmas Eve:
“I am writing this email after I have not been able to sleep all night due to the distress your handling of the leakage in the roof has been causing my wife and I.
“For over 15 months now we are being pushed back and forth and nothing concrete has been
done to end our frustrations.
“It is obvious we are not going to have any great Christmas celebration because of the myriads of thoughts & fears of a repeat of another Apollo roof episode [a reference to the recent collapse of the roof at the Apollo Theatre, London, which injured the audience].”
And Mr Bankole adds: “If any health issue arise due to this negligence on your part and your monster company, I will do everything I can to get you to pay a very high price.”
Matt Bridges, a Peverel property manager, did reply at 8am on Christmas Eve and sent around a contractor that afternoon, but he could do little about roof damage on the third floor at that stage.
“Water is still coming down our walls. It is an appalling situation,” says Bankole.
“Crowthorne Lodge needs to be taken into new management.”
Related posts:
Winter of misery ends for couple in leasehold flat, thanks to LKP
Squirrels in roofs cause fires, so why is nothing being done, ask couple in Peverel block
Dead squirrels in the roof and rivulets of water down the walls … couple feel let down by Peverel
Whistleblower accuses contractor of cheating … adding to leasehold owners’ misery
Guardian reports misery of leasehold home owners trapped by John Lewis Partnership Pension Trust – and the Mail, Sun, Mirror and Lad Bible (any we have missed?)
Guardian covers more fall out from Peverel’s price-fixing scam with Cirrus Communications
I am sad that this is the case however I did reply on the earlier story about how they can force the issue using the disrepair protocol and/or to contact the local EHO, asking the ADMIN to pass it on.
If that has not been done, perhaps they could look out the old post and do so please.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_hou
I am sad and empathise with this case. We had /have similar situation. Our management agency, does not want to fix the problem with a fair cost. They try to make leaseholders desperate and ready for any costs. They are cruel, and I believe this is a crime.
This is an absolute disgrace and the only option I can see is for RTM. We tried our local council on the environmental issue but they did not want to know as we were leaseholders and not tenants.
With RTM at least you can choose your contractors at a fair price, make sure they do the work required and sleep at night! Please try to get the other residents involved because you could be paying well over the odds for the major works you seem to be expecting next year?
That is a common excuse as councils seek to avoid the cost and expense of getting involved in this however, they are obligated to act under the 2004 Act ( and elsewhere) and it is a case of making the argument and using the complaints process to get past this road block that councils are putting up to avoid their legal responsibility. The poor couple need only instruct a local qualified surveyor or qualified builder (MCIOB) to prepare a schedule of works and start the above process. Given the amount of time that has passed a lawyer for hire type might well make a damages claim on a contingency basis for good measure.
I agree that a Right To Manage is the only option and if you need help on this please do get in touch with Sebastian and he will pass on my details. Any help I offer is free of charge…..
Well no its not Karen he can force the landlords to act now as explained above. And many months ago. RTM will take well into the summer to complete.
AM, I think he should still do a RTM as well as persuing the landlords/managing agents do what they are getting paid to do and keep the building in good repair.
In the long term sorting out one problem is just not good enough because as we all know there will be ‘other’ repairs/damage that will accur due to bad management of the building.
I generally find that with most groups it is usually down to one person to get things moving and if it is going to fail it is usually because of time constraints, most people live busy lives.
If they get themselves a good managing agent to organise a RTM for them then all that future stress and hassle is taken away and they can get on and enjoy the place they have choosen to live in peace and harmony.
The key factors are:
How to choose a managing agent.
What is a good managing agent?
What to expect of the new managing agent.
How to plan going forward with a RTM Company.
Speaking to people that have gone through this process is the best route and there are lots about that are willing to help.
I don’t disagree, I was responding to the assertion in your post that “its the only option”. I am slightly disappointed that the advice was given some time ago with the request that it be passed on, and the poor owners would be far better off by now. In these cases its usually an underlying problem such as lack of funds at the scheme preventing them from instructing their technical division or a builder. This forces the landlord to accept their legal responbility and act, whether the SC pot is empty or not.
AM
You are assuming a lot about Mr Bankole’s development without any facts.
You are assuming that the leaseholders have not paid enough in service charges for the repairs to their building… It is clear from the article on LKP that Mr Bankole and his wife have been trying to get their landlord to repair the damage correctly for 15 months and not just patch it up.
It is a common flaw with most landlords to let little problems become huge problems and then a new roof maybe!!!! Seen all this before on more than one occasion..
RTM is the ONLY way forward for leaseholders..
NO landlord or managing agent is working for the good of their health or because they have nothing better to do, they are doing it to maximise profits….
A small minority do have a conscience and they can be found on the LKP approved managing agents listing.
Unfortunatley, when people who do not know how leasehold works buys a property on a leasehold development, they are usually unaware of the little web they have got themselves into.
They assume that the landlord and his annointed/appointed managing agents are going to charge them a reasonable fee for looking after the development and keep it is good order… how wrong they are, as that is just not how it works with a landlords annointed managing agent…
You can try and paint a rosy picture as much as you want, but those of us who do have leasehold properties and have seen first hand all the little perks they get up to know better.
Right To Manage is King…..
The vast majority of those purchasing leasehold property are totally ignorant of the minefield they are stepping in to. Even when making a call to a Property Expert on LBC Radio and asking if service charge funds were protected against fraud, the answer i was given was that “provided the managing agent/freeholder is a member of ARMA it should be covered”.
However long it takes, we must keep publicising how leaesehold operates against the interests of leaseholders, and we must dispel the myth that the only difference between freehold and leasehold is the number of years you own a property.
Only through the freehold do you own the property. For leasehold you own the lease not the property.
I note that Mcarthy and Stone have dropped the claim in their adverts that purchasing a Mcarthy and Stone apartment allows you to “own” your home, after they were challenged over this.
Yes you are right. Thats why all involved should be subject to statutory regulation, but thats one reason why I walked out of the GLA led conference, rather disgusted, and embarrassed, by my fellow professionals who were not advocating it. While commonhold is not the answer, making what I call the P-1 leases, perpetuity less a day, compulsory, will solve a lot of the ownership issues, but regulation and holding monies /protection must l be required for all agents and landlords even if be they an RTM or Commonhold Association.
But you are, as I have said before to others , looking at this through a prism of one group of rather nasty exploitative landlords and agents, when there are a large number who do get that good service at a reasonable costs. There are many who do take their stewardship professionally and fairly recognising their duties as quasi trustees, like me, raised in an old fashioned GP practice, and told at the outset, you choose to be gamekeeper or poacher, not both, which this lot are.
As Karen Explained the only solution is to regain control and do RTM. In my experience some management companies give you one inch if you give them miles. Even The inch they offer is not acceptable. They know how the system works. They are allowed to cause the most stressful condition of life for money. I agree also with AM, Leaseholders do not cooperate. Is a long, tiring, and stressful process but, is rewarding. No body cares for our property, money, and comfort. Is only us.
Go for RTM.
But you are making assumptions too Karen. We don’t know why they are not reacting to this, I have offered one potential, and a very common, explanation.
The use of the process is to establish, with expert/qualified help if required, what needs to be done, and pursue that rather than a short term patch up or extensive works that are not needed.
It is therefore wrong to say that RTM is the only solution. If the lessees pursue this themselves then that doesn’t stop them starting RTM, nor if, lets assume, again, that the repair needed is a new roof, that they can withdraw from the process, preferring instead that the new roof is undertaken by the RTM as they have far more confidence in their RTM. In many cases where a large project and expense is required, it can galvanise people into joining an RTM.
At the moment the poor couple have a leaky roof and need to resolve that, this will allow them to do so and doesn’t stop them from looking at other options.
In fact if the roof leak has arisen from disrepair, it might be sensible to press the landlord to do the work and challenge the cost under Continental vs White and have the contribution reduced. Exercising RTM would make that very difficult to do…….
Agreed, although I doubt very much whether the leaseholders on this development understand the process of how to complain to get essential repairs done and may feel that they will have to take legal advice at great cost to themselves which puts leaseholders off doing anything.
The law is so complicated with so many ‘grey’ areas. Who in this day and age has the time or inclination go down that route when they work full time and have family committments?
I know from my own experience that had I had a full time job when we did our RTM there would have been no way I would have been able to commit to the time that was needed, thankfully I was in a position to choose to commit to it.
It is not always as clear cut decision as it may appear..
Assuming that I found the right Crowthorne Lodge in Bracknell on Right Move, it’s a simple pitched roof with interlocking tiles, and not that old. Assuming third floor means the flats with dormer windows and located “in the roof”, the most likely cause, other than cracked or missing tiles, inc the number of hips tiles, is going to be the valleys and joints where the dormers meet the main roof, or the gasket where a flue vents out through the roof . Some of these are not viewable from the ground so there is high initial cost to inspect and specify the work as we are no longer allowed to clamber that high on ladders anymore. I am assuming that there is no loft access, As a hint of daylight might spot the problem! A small hole and hand held endoscope is useful in these situations.
Inspection can be carried out from a small cherry picker/static boom, unless its at the rear as I cant see access, for a £100/£200 a day hire. Alternatively quotes can be obtained on access plus a schedule of rates for various types of work which can be authorised on site, with evidence of what was needed and what was done.
In my Heath Robinson way I’d duct tape a video camera to a broom stick or window cleaners pole and stick it out the bedroom window first as that can be a lot cheaper and give a great idea without the cherry picker.
Simples.
If you look back to March 2013 you will see the building and the roof structure. In the following comments Mr Bankole was quoted around £1,300 to do the work.
If it were me I would be inclined to now get the work done, deduct the price from any forthcoming service charges and argue the consequences later. This cannot continue any longer and SHOULD have been resolved months ago.
Ok, if he has that quote, then that should have been the basis on which he used the pre action protocol, if the post had been passed on as asked.
He cannot deduct it from service charges as it will invariably lead to expensive legal action where he weill end up with costs, “win or lose”. Using the protocol will either resolve the issue, or if that fails and he needs to take it onto Court, then he might, with prior notice carry out the work relying firstly on precedent to carry out works outside the demise, and secondly seek those costs be repaid to him. that he has followed the protocol and given notice can insulate him from the potential legal costs, and have his service charge awarded as payment.
In cases such as this, i have found that contacting the local newspaper can bring results(it worked for the lift debacle). Also it would be a bonus if at the end of any article, readers were asked to contact the newspaper if they too had any issues with Peverel.