Forum Topic

I completely agree with Peter's second para here.  There are responsibilities which may seem easy and trivial when all leaseholders are in agreement but building safety is very important and some people take it a lot less seriously than others, and many are ignorant (true meaning) of building safety.  Fire Prevention Officers have the most amazing film of lack of building safety.  All the building defects that are found later or changes in Building Regs after construction which although MAY not technically have to be adhered to now are obviously better adhered to now for EVERYBODY'S safety's sake especially in the light of Grenfell and preceding fires where Coroners' reports were not acted on.  Any buildings with many leaseholders and perhaps tenants as well NEED strict management.  There will be leaseholders who won't pay even though they can afford to and somebody needs to be able to sort that out together with how there is more likely to be more agreement for repainting and new carpets than a sinking fund for more major things like roof and lift repair and renewal!  A management company should be advising on how much is necessary for this instead of allowing a building to deteriorate without enough maintenance and planning for any more substantial problems.In some blocks of flats the easeholders each have a share of the freehold.I see that there is now a developer suing all subcontractors after they have been made to remediate a building.It is interesting how so very many buildings were built that now suddenly need remediation.

Philippa Bond ● 473d

I've been involved in this process a few times as a Leaseholder.  You've probably done your own research, but if enough leaseholders want it, there's a formal process to apply to your freeholder for the Right to Manage which, if contested, ends up at the First Tier Tribunal who will normally give you Right to Manage and appoint new professional management independent of the freeholder.  In practice, you might find a management company you fancy to help you with this in the expectation that they'll be appointed.  It's tempting for leaseholders to consider literally managing the building themselves, but I'd advise against this as it can create all kinds of internal tensions over what needs doing and how much things cost, with difficulties chasing up outstanding service charges and dealing with any anti-social behaviour.  It's far better to leave all that to an independent company whose job it is to look after the building properly.  Initially this can be testing for leaseholders, particularly if the building was neglected by the previous management, as maintenance costs are likely to go up to compensate and to get the building into proper shape.  Previous 'activist' leaseholders must also get used to stepping back and letting the professionals do their job!  A further step to consider is for the Leaseholders to buy the freehold of the building through Collective Enfranchisement, and there's another legal process to properly set that up. One advantage of this is that the Leaseholders can collectively issue themselves 999 year leases at zero ground rent at little cost to themselves.  Again there's the potential for internal tension between individual leaseholders, so it's vital to have professional management and proper legal structures in place.

Peter Evans ● 476d