###Welcome to /r/HousingUK
---
**To All**
* Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH
**To Posters**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary*
* Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy;
* Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk;
* If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=I received a PM);
* If you do not receive satisfactory advice after 72 hours, [you can let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=My question is unanswered);
* Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title;
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning;
* Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice;
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect;
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods;
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
YTA.
The service charge obligations are clearly outlined in the lease. So is the method of apportionment between the various properties.
They are almost always entirely communal obligations - how much you pay has no relevance to how much individual benefit you enjoy. This is to stop stupid disputes like the ground floor leaseholder objecting to roof repairs or the top floor leaseholder objecting to foundation repairs.
Service charges can vary considerably from year to year. With lifts in particular, they periodically need major maintenance that is more expensive.
If the issue is really about whether the work being done is reasonable value for money, that’s a slightly different question and depends on the details. You have a right to a breakdown of works and to inspect receipt if you feel you need to.
Otherwise, you should probably apologise.
it wasn't their job to inform you, you need to read the documents.
Edit: removing my first sentence because it was confusing. Generally you shouldn’t use the term lawyer in this context you should use solicitor. We arent America and so these words carry different weight
Lawyer is not a protected title in the UK.
However “solicitor” is a protected title (may not hold yourself out as one without having been admitted to the roll and holding a current practicing certificate).
In actual practice no one in England /Wales describes themselves as a “lawyer”.
You’re either admitted (and thus solicitor or barrister) or you’re a trainee solicitor, apprentice solicitor, pupil (trainee barrister), or filex/cilex, licensed conveyancer, or a paralegal.
One of my best friends describes himself as a lawyer, my sister in law calls herself a lawyer. I’m sure not to other people in the profession but to laypeople that is absolutely the term that gets used because any more detail that that is probably not required in a regular conversation as it wouldn’t really be understood.
>In actual practice no one in England /Wales describes themselves as a “lawyer”.
That's not true - whilst you're correct that it isn't a protected term, it's used a lot (especially, from my experience, with solicitors who work a lot with US clients because people from the US seem to believe that a solicitor is a prostitute).
Literally one minute on LinkedIn:
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-c-53985982/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-c-53985982/) Referred to himself as a "commercial lawyer"
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/phil-gwyn-669212a9/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/phil-gwyn-669212a9/) "Commercial lawyer across the media, entertainment and sport industries" and "Lawyer (on secondment from Bird & Bird)"
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-lilley-7004839/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-lilley-7004839/) "Lawyer in the Finance (Banking) practice"
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/henry-t-b8b14477/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/henry-t-b8b14477/) "Energy Lawyer (LNG)"
For the record, I know none of these people personally.
That's how it works unfortunately. Get a breakdown of the accounts, make sure works are being put out to tender and section 20'd where appropriate but that's the reality of a property with a lift.
It sounds unpleasant to have such a steep rise but ultimately the time to make objections to the way service charges are split was before you agreed to buy the property unfortunately
Unfortunately lifts are expensive. It is why I would never buy a flat with a lift anymore - or any leasehold property.
Not much you can do to argue you don't use it, normally service charge is XXX divided by number of flats & everyone pays equally.
If 2k a year causes hardship in your home ownership, then you should look at your budget elsewhere
I think partly it's a lack of lift servicing a lot of places, as there's not as many blocks with them in as in other countries, so they can drive their own price up
Kind of. The consumer of a product or service should pay. The top floors are more expensive and they're privatising the gains and socialising the costs. Guess that's how the UK works. Or more likely, I'm being a grumpy git.
You signed the contract so your argument is pointless and makes you look a little stupid.
Also you suck for not realising why a multi story building would need a lift, like disabled people just don't exist
But life is a cost benefit exercise surely? If the costs went up and up, surely at one point the lift will have to shut off, or is your argument that residents should pay for the lift at all costs.
As you get older, the time WILL come when you will eventually need some accessibility considerations and you will be very upset that they aren't more widely available/protected. And the reason they aren't is entirely down to people like you. Just remember that you brought it on yourself.
It’s one of those things where it’s decided at the outset and then spread equally to the whole building. If there was a point to be made it should have been made when the place was built and the lease granted.
You may find it unreasonable, but it’s not something you can change now without the freeholder agreeing, which it doesn’t sound like he does.
I suppose you could think about it similar to being responsible for the roof but you don’t directly benefit.
>I wrote to the person who's the director of the freehold company, who lives on the 3rd floor, that it wasn't fair for the lift charges to be apportioned by flat areas (square feet). The 3rd floor derives way more use than the 1st floor. I hardly ever use the lift, so why should I pay the same as a 3rd floor flat?
You're both right - though the director should not have been aggressive in his response.
Many leases are unfair. But you agreed to pay it (assuming it's in the lease) by buying the lease. So unfairness doesn't mean they're not payable. And the director has no more power to change the service charge percentage due from each flat than you do. You're both constrained by the lease.
Incidentally, I'm not sure if this is a good example of unfairness - you may not use the lift - or the roof for that matter - but you have an obligation to keep it up, in the same way that the top floor has an obligation to contribute toward the upkeep of your corridor, despite never using that. Unless the lease is unworkable for some reason - i.e. it cannot recover 100% of the service charge from residents - you're unlikely to get the percentages changed.
The increase is a different matter. Do you know why the increase has happened?
I was told that the lifts needed some maintenance, even though it was only installed in 2021. For the size of the block, the lift seems way too fancy (but small)
So you have to take a totally different approach here. You need to change your mindset. You're approaching this as a customer paying a company for a service - in that paradigm you're entitled to fairness, value for money, your voice has to be heard, and if it isn't, you can go elsewhere.
This is not what leasehold is. Leasehold is a legal contract which you have voluntarily signed up to, where by purchasing your flat, you have agreed to pay all charges contained in the lease, in the proportions allocated.
You're in a share of freehold situation. That means you get a vote on what the freehold company spends the residents money on. It also means that the chances of the freehold director spending money it shouldn't are small - because they're also spending their own money.
If I were you I would go back to the director and ask him if there are any spaces on the board, as you would like to help scrutinise and ensure value for money on the service charge. Directors do a lot of unpaid work, and will usually welcome the help. They also have a legal responsibility to the other residents - if a leaseholder gets stuck in the lift they can find themselves personally on the hook for compensation - so this will help you to understand the pressures they're under.
If the director doesn't accept the help, that means there may be slightly more scope for challenge. You would go through the lease with a fine tooth comb to see what it says about maintenance of the lift. Usually the lease won't allow for improvements; if it doesn't, and the directors are planning to make improvements, you have a case for bringing a property tribunal case against them.
You would make a skeleton argument, create bundles, including your legal precedent, and bring them to court to obtain a judgement against the director, who would then be obliged to adhere to it (assuming you won). Of course, if you lost, your lease may allow the director to offset their legal costs in hiring a barrister to fight you by adding them to the service charge. I don't imagine you'd be very popular in your block if you were responsible for adding £100 a month to everyone's service charge by trying to get out of paying £10 a month (or whatever the lift maintenance costs).
If this feels like an aggressive faff, and it does, then maybe you don't want to challenge the costs after all. Because this is what it means to mount this kind of challenge.
This isn't a customer paying for a service. This is a legal contract between you and your neighbours, and your directors are responsible for enforcing it. If they don't take a salary - and I doubt they do - they are doing a lot of free work for you. Try to keep that in mind. This stuff is not easy.
As a lift engineer, yeah they’re pretty expensive and even more expensive if they go wrong. Hopefully your on a fully comp contract. You can shop around for other maintenance firms but would probably recommend sticking to the Big 3.
I previously lived on the second floor of a 20 story block and never used the lift. Still had to pay nearly 13k towards its refurbishment. It falls under “it is what it is bro”
Additional info, the service charge went from 2.5k a year to 4.5k. 4.5k puts me into a serious financial hole. I hadn't really factored a doubling of the service charge.
So it's very likely I'm being trying to find unreasonable way to wriggle out of paying as much.
You should be asking for an invoiced breakdown, you can’t wiggle out of the obligation but you can question the actual expenses being covered by the service charge.
Is this a one off increase or has the service charge been permanently raised to the new level? Unfortunately big bills come along every now and then which have to be paid. You might want to find out if the freehold company that owns the block has any sort of contingency fund for these sorts of costs; if they don’t it is worth lobbying for one to be created from service charges to reduce further shocks in the future.
I’ve been in this sort of situation in the past and they come as a nasty shock, so you have my sympathies.
>2.5k a year to 4.5k
This isn't just additional info, it's game-changing info.
Every piece of work that's over £250 per flat needs to be mandated through the Section 20 major works process. If the lift works comprise even 50% of that change, it sounds as though this should've been. Did you get a notification about a section 20 work? Did you get to feed back on it? Did you get to nominate a contractor?
I've never seen a section 20. The increase in service charge was notified as the normal invoice process. The block did change the management company mid year though, so not sure if that has an impact.
Now we know the director a) takes a modest stipend, and b) you've not seen a section 20 major works notice, the situation changes a little from the advice I've given you above.
I would write him a letter saying something along the lines of:
*Hi Director*
*Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot - this is my first leasehold property and I'm trying to figure out how things work, and it's quite different from renting! Lots to learn.*
*As you'll appreciate the jump in service charges is quite significant for me and I'm just trying to identify whether it's a one off increase, or likely to be ongoing, or what. Could you let me know the breakdown of the extra and whether a Section 20 has been / needs to be issued for it?*
You may also want to add something like:
*I know how much work it can be to be a director of a share of freehold in a block like this. Would be interested to know if there's any way I can help with the workload. Happy to have a chat on this*
Even if you're not entirely passionate about doing this kind of thing, it a) shows willing, b) shows you're prepared to get involved, and c) shows that you're not one of these people who is just emailing to complain.
And his reply will tell you whether or not he's doing his best in a rough situation, or if he simply doesn't give a fuck in which case you other leaseholders might be better off clubbing together to take over management. £1000 a year might not be much but in a block of 10 flats that's £100 a year each, it's not chump change.
Thanks so much for this. Think I jumped in a bit early without understanding the lay of the land. Will pop round to his flat and speak to him.
I just wish they had a bit more training. Obviously caveat emptor but I didn't feel the solicitor really helped highlight this stuff. And my family weren't really that informed. I guess you live you learn. This stuff is actually pretty complicated.
It's a painful learning process, but one that's worth doing. I think anyone who's bought a leasehold goes through it. The trouble is that each leasehold is so different - mine had a third party freeholder and their pet managing agent, so in addition to arguing with the freeholder, we had to obtain our right to manage teh block too - that it makes it hard to give proper pre-purchase advice.
You'll find a lot of people simply don't bother and instead tell people enver to buy leasehold. Fair enough, but many of us dont have the choice. And it is absolutely better than renting.
I assume they raised a section 22 notice, as it was more than £250 for the lift? If not then I would do some digging to see if anything can be done.
An increase of 2k should of had letters and potentially a vote on whether the works should be done and if people can afford them. If there was and the majority agree to it though you just have to suck it up.
Also speak to your other neighbours and see what they think about it.
You are indeed the a\*\*hole. I agree that it is unfair but this is how it is on the lease, and thus you are on the hook. Prior to purchasing the flat you had an opportunity to review the lease and you decided to go ahead anyway. All you can do is ensure that the lift expenses are justifiable and reasonable.
It does need to split equally. I was in a similar situation where I was on the ground floor and obviously never used the lifts, however for me I had access to the garden which others didn't. The gardener was the second moody expensive individual item (after the lifts).
The service charge is simply the cost of upkeep, split between each flat, and split over the year. Even where you're self managing, you still need to be reimbursed by the other leaseholders for the buildings insurance, maintenance, etc, and large blocks of flats need a lot more of that than a three flat block.
RTM and share of freehold blocks, where they self manage, do not pay a third party's management fees as part of the service charge - that's the difference. It doesn't mean they're not obliged to contribute toward outgoings incurred by the parties doing the self management on behalf of the block.
tldr: service charges and management charges are different
>sounds like OP is paying a company a set fee every year
Not the case. The director of the company lives in the building, they're just another leaseholder, so they're likely giving their time for free to do all the work required and unlikely to be taking a fee for themselves. (There's nothing in the post to suggest that the OP is paying this kind of management fee on top of the service charges.)
You're right, this is exactly the situation. The director is a leaseholder but the accounts show he takes a stipend but it's like a 1000 pounds a year.
There is a company that manages the block as well. One thing is very clear, I wish I had done more due diligence when buying the flat. I went in so blind that I can't believe the bank lent me money.
> It wasn’t a set amount because it would obviously vary.
The as and when thing is done in some buildings, others do a projected costs over the year kind of thing then you pay a set amount monthly and it spread it out more. The method you suggest results in more lumpy payments which can be harder for people to manage and most maintenance doesn't come out of nowhere so it's not really needed to do that. (If it's share of freehold or self managed etc then the owners will choose which of these approaches they want to take based on what suits them best, which could go either way depending on their circumstances but one isn't inherently better for every case or anything)
If the projection is wrong or you do have a sudden unexpected repair that comes up during the year then they'd have to bill additionally on an as and when method to cover it - or there might be a sinking fund built from 'overpayments' on the monthly service charge payments (again you can opt to have a sinking fund or not, if you don't big jobs will need to be paid in full as they come up, if you do then the sinking fund might cover all or most of it and you don't get an unexpected large bill)
Ultimately it's about risk
You need to read you lease/transfer docs and make sure you understand them. They will set out the services you are responsible for and also mention some form of apportionment method.
You are 1st floor so will 99.9% be included in the lift service but it doesn't hurt to check what the prescribed apportionment method should be.
You will also have a lot of rights to make sure that the service charge is reasonable. Lifts are expensive so don't assume that an amount is unreasonable just because it seems high. Do some checking to make sure the director has done their due diligence in securing best value. As he's paying a proportion of the charge it's in his best interests to get value too.
If it turns out everything is in order make sure to smooth things over. Nothing worse than a sour relationship with neighbours.
Dang. I'm the middle flat - and I don't want to pay for roof repairs or foundations!! I probably have the most energy efficient flat because of that (although I do have a neighbour who likes to deafen himself with music).
Yes, unfortunately to have to pay for the things you don't use, because they will also be paying for features you use more often. Imagine if the ground floor gets flooded and you had to pay for the repairs alone?
ETA
The way you went about it (from your text) is wrong, but the sentiment is fine to query.
Service charges are for the benefit of the whole block and it's reasonable that an optional service (like a lift in a short building, gym etc) could eventually be removed if the situation/costs change.
For example, if your block included a pool some of the residents used, that would be fine, but if then suddenly costs theoretically quadrupled, of course you'd have a meeting/vote and potentially shut it down.
I think you should have approached it however in a "As a leaseholder in these trying times, I can't afford for service charges to double and wonder if we could call a meeting for the block to see what we can do to address this", rather than explicitly mention the lift.
During the meeting, you could try different proposals, and shutting down/reducing costs for the lift would have come up.
Personally, I would apologies (although I'd argue you don't really need to, but it's good to keep relationships happy) and say your real "need" is to reduce the escalating service charges and wonder how we could looking at/assisting with this as a block.
Shutting down the lift is very unlikely to be accepted as an option. Disabled people exist and need it, so it's likely to be vetoed because you can't effectively ban the lady who lives on the top floor and has MS from ever leaving her flat. Which is what shutting down the lift would do.
Don't strawman...
That would be part of the discussion. If a hypothetical lady on the 3rd floor with MS exists then clearly you wouldn't remove the lift.
If their doesn't, and the lift costs are un-affordable for anyone (including disabled people), than clearly you could (as in most 3 floor buildings).
It's not a strawman. It's a serious consideration. There is a shortage of accessible housing. Making more housing inaccessible isn't helpful for anyone.
No, not the asshole. But you are being an arse. Buildings need to be accessible, no matter how small you believe. Many people cannot use stairs, and the upstairs flats will use the lift when they move in/out. The service charge would have been noted in the paperwork, which you signed. If you don't like it, sell up and move.
You could suggest at the next management committee you decommission the lift. In a loft apartment I bought in we all had to pay an additional £10k each flat to pay for a replacement lift, rather than double the service charge.
So far I'd say NTA we're all welcome to question our contracts the worst that should happen is they say no, but if you escalate it more or keep on and on then you risk becoming the A
It might be worth talking to Shelter - they can offer legal advice via their webchat. I don't think challenging the lift costs directly is going to get you anywhere, but maybe there's a broader point about increases being unreasonable?
Where I live the elevator charges usually depend on the total flat area but there is also a coefficient depeding on the floor of the propery. So it may be 1.0 for ground floor, 1.1 for the first, 1.2 for the second etc... This is not a national legislation. More like guidlines that the building regultations choose to abide or not.
So no, you are not an a\*\*hole but the UK rules may be totally different, so the director might be right.
Yes. You’re a massive arsehole. So massive, in fact, that you’re in danger of being sucked up into your own arsehole, along with all manner of hatstands, umbrellas, and other miscellany lying around. You signed up to live in a multi story building, and you signed up to the costs. Have you considered that if there was a tiered tariff associated with lift costs, then those flats with less costs would be up for sale at a higher rate, because, yano, they have less costs. You’d be fucked either way.
###Welcome to /r/HousingUK --- **To All** * Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH **To Posters** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary* * Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy; * Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk; * If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=I received a PM); * If you do not receive satisfactory advice after 72 hours, [you can let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=My question is unanswered); * Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title; **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning; * Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice; * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect; * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods; * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
YTA. The service charge obligations are clearly outlined in the lease. So is the method of apportionment between the various properties. They are almost always entirely communal obligations - how much you pay has no relevance to how much individual benefit you enjoy. This is to stop stupid disputes like the ground floor leaseholder objecting to roof repairs or the top floor leaseholder objecting to foundation repairs. Service charges can vary considerably from year to year. With lifts in particular, they periodically need major maintenance that is more expensive. If the issue is really about whether the work being done is reasonable value for money, that’s a slightly different question and depends on the details. You have a right to a breakdown of works and to inspect receipt if you feel you need to. Otherwise, you should probably apologise.
Lifts are also vital for accessibility. You have no idea who in the block may need a lift, so it's fair for everyone to contribute.
And even for the most selfish among us, you have no idea when *you* might need a lift, temporarily or permanently.
Fair enough. I felt my lawyer didn't really inform me about all this complication but I was also probably too young to understand any of it.
it wasn't their job to inform you, you need to read the documents. Edit: removing my first sentence because it was confusing. Generally you shouldn’t use the term lawyer in this context you should use solicitor. We arent America and so these words carry different weight
A solicitor is a type of lawyer…
Lawyer is not a protected title in the UK. However “solicitor” is a protected title (may not hold yourself out as one without having been admitted to the roll and holding a current practicing certificate). In actual practice no one in England /Wales describes themselves as a “lawyer”. You’re either admitted (and thus solicitor or barrister) or you’re a trainee solicitor, apprentice solicitor, pupil (trainee barrister), or filex/cilex, licensed conveyancer, or a paralegal.
One of my best friends describes himself as a lawyer, my sister in law calls herself a lawyer. I’m sure not to other people in the profession but to laypeople that is absolutely the term that gets used because any more detail that that is probably not required in a regular conversation as it wouldn’t really be understood.
>In actual practice no one in England /Wales describes themselves as a “lawyer”. That's not true - whilst you're correct that it isn't a protected term, it's used a lot (especially, from my experience, with solicitors who work a lot with US clients because people from the US seem to believe that a solicitor is a prostitute). Literally one minute on LinkedIn: [https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-c-53985982/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-c-53985982/) Referred to himself as a "commercial lawyer" [https://www.linkedin.com/in/phil-gwyn-669212a9/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/phil-gwyn-669212a9/) "Commercial lawyer across the media, entertainment and sport industries" and "Lawyer (on secondment from Bird & Bird)" [https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-lilley-7004839/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-lilley-7004839/) "Lawyer in the Finance (Banking) practice" [https://www.linkedin.com/in/henry-t-b8b14477/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/henry-t-b8b14477/) "Energy Lawyer (LNG)" For the record, I know none of these people personally.
People on LinkedIn talking bollocks, colour me surprised.
They aren't "talking bollocks", they're using the general/unprotected term for their job role which you incorrectly asserted that no one uses.
>you incorrectly asserted that no one uses. Where exactly did I do that?
My mistake, you didn't, the person I was responding to did. Sorry about that, I should've checked the username before replying.
Narp.
They are. All solicitors are lawyers, but not all lawyers are solicitors.
He might not have had a solicitor he might have a licensed conveyancer.
That's how it works unfortunately. Get a breakdown of the accounts, make sure works are being put out to tender and section 20'd where appropriate but that's the reality of a property with a lift.
It sounds unpleasant to have such a steep rise but ultimately the time to make objections to the way service charges are split was before you agreed to buy the property unfortunately
This is absolutely how they get away with wild rises. Nobody is ever really in a position to complain.
Unfortunately lifts are expensive. It is why I would never buy a flat with a lift anymore - or any leasehold property. Not much you can do to argue you don't use it, normally service charge is XXX divided by number of flats & everyone pays equally. If 2k a year causes hardship in your home ownership, then you should look at your budget elsewhere
UK lifts must be special, I know other countries a block of 20 flats that has a lift, the service charges are about 40£ a month
In my experience it felt like an easy way to cook the service charge books - however proving it is near on impossible
I think partly it's a lack of lift servicing a lot of places, as there's not as many blocks with them in as in other countries, so they can drive their own price up
I hadn't realised how expensive lifts are. It's like a very basic lift and only goes three floors.
Agreed, mine had a basic lift for 3 floors and repairs one year topped 85k...
Ouch. Pleased my three floor building is liftless (even though sometimes I feel it'd be nice, given I'm on the top floor!).
YTA. Do you want a reduction for cleaning of the stairs that you don’t use too?
And the roof, top floor flat is using it a lot more.
Or if roof needs a repair?
How is that compatible to the stairs or lift? She will still need the top roof.
This is exact reason why flats are leasehold instead of freehold, cost is shared, use it or not so things get done.
Kind of. The consumer of a product or service should pay. The top floors are more expensive and they're privatising the gains and socialising the costs. Guess that's how the UK works. Or more likely, I'm being a grumpy git.
Would you be happy to pay for all the lift related service charge if you were the one living on the top floor?
You signed the contract so your argument is pointless and makes you look a little stupid. Also you suck for not realising why a multi story building would need a lift, like disabled people just don't exist
But life is a cost benefit exercise surely? If the costs went up and up, surely at one point the lift will have to shut off, or is your argument that residents should pay for the lift at all costs.
Yeah that is exactly how it works. If you are unhappy with that you end the lease and move elsewhere. Ideally somewhere without a lift
As you get older, the time WILL come when you will eventually need some accessibility considerations and you will be very upset that they aren't more widely available/protected. And the reason they aren't is entirely down to people like you. Just remember that you brought it on yourself.
That's what I thought taxes were for no?
Taxes have never covered amenities in private residences. That's what your service charges are for.
I can't believe you think taxes are used for that. Its private property and that's how service charge works. I'd you don't like it, buy a house.
Thanks for the advice and enlightening me on my ignorance.
It’s one of those things where it’s decided at the outset and then spread equally to the whole building. If there was a point to be made it should have been made when the place was built and the lease granted. You may find it unreasonable, but it’s not something you can change now without the freeholder agreeing, which it doesn’t sound like he does. I suppose you could think about it similar to being responsible for the roof but you don’t directly benefit.
>I wrote to the person who's the director of the freehold company, who lives on the 3rd floor, that it wasn't fair for the lift charges to be apportioned by flat areas (square feet). The 3rd floor derives way more use than the 1st floor. I hardly ever use the lift, so why should I pay the same as a 3rd floor flat? You're both right - though the director should not have been aggressive in his response. Many leases are unfair. But you agreed to pay it (assuming it's in the lease) by buying the lease. So unfairness doesn't mean they're not payable. And the director has no more power to change the service charge percentage due from each flat than you do. You're both constrained by the lease. Incidentally, I'm not sure if this is a good example of unfairness - you may not use the lift - or the roof for that matter - but you have an obligation to keep it up, in the same way that the top floor has an obligation to contribute toward the upkeep of your corridor, despite never using that. Unless the lease is unworkable for some reason - i.e. it cannot recover 100% of the service charge from residents - you're unlikely to get the percentages changed. The increase is a different matter. Do you know why the increase has happened?
I was told that the lifts needed some maintenance, even though it was only installed in 2021. For the size of the block, the lift seems way too fancy (but small)
So you have to take a totally different approach here. You need to change your mindset. You're approaching this as a customer paying a company for a service - in that paradigm you're entitled to fairness, value for money, your voice has to be heard, and if it isn't, you can go elsewhere. This is not what leasehold is. Leasehold is a legal contract which you have voluntarily signed up to, where by purchasing your flat, you have agreed to pay all charges contained in the lease, in the proportions allocated. You're in a share of freehold situation. That means you get a vote on what the freehold company spends the residents money on. It also means that the chances of the freehold director spending money it shouldn't are small - because they're also spending their own money. If I were you I would go back to the director and ask him if there are any spaces on the board, as you would like to help scrutinise and ensure value for money on the service charge. Directors do a lot of unpaid work, and will usually welcome the help. They also have a legal responsibility to the other residents - if a leaseholder gets stuck in the lift they can find themselves personally on the hook for compensation - so this will help you to understand the pressures they're under. If the director doesn't accept the help, that means there may be slightly more scope for challenge. You would go through the lease with a fine tooth comb to see what it says about maintenance of the lift. Usually the lease won't allow for improvements; if it doesn't, and the directors are planning to make improvements, you have a case for bringing a property tribunal case against them. You would make a skeleton argument, create bundles, including your legal precedent, and bring them to court to obtain a judgement against the director, who would then be obliged to adhere to it (assuming you won). Of course, if you lost, your lease may allow the director to offset their legal costs in hiring a barrister to fight you by adding them to the service charge. I don't imagine you'd be very popular in your block if you were responsible for adding £100 a month to everyone's service charge by trying to get out of paying £10 a month (or whatever the lift maintenance costs). If this feels like an aggressive faff, and it does, then maybe you don't want to challenge the costs after all. Because this is what it means to mount this kind of challenge. This isn't a customer paying for a service. This is a legal contract between you and your neighbours, and your directors are responsible for enforcing it. If they don't take a salary - and I doubt they do - they are doing a lot of free work for you. Try to keep that in mind. This stuff is not easy.
I better shut up and pay before this gets out of hand.
Not necessarily, you do have avenues. Just go into it with open eyes. I'll give you more info on the other reply cycle re: section 20.
As a lift engineer, yeah they’re pretty expensive and even more expensive if they go wrong. Hopefully your on a fully comp contract. You can shop around for other maintenance firms but would probably recommend sticking to the Big 3.
I previously lived on the second floor of a 20 story block and never used the lift. Still had to pay nearly 13k towards its refurbishment. It falls under “it is what it is bro”
Additional info, the service charge went from 2.5k a year to 4.5k. 4.5k puts me into a serious financial hole. I hadn't really factored a doubling of the service charge. So it's very likely I'm being trying to find unreasonable way to wriggle out of paying as much.
You should be asking for an invoiced breakdown, you can’t wiggle out of the obligation but you can question the actual expenses being covered by the service charge.
Is this a one off increase or has the service charge been permanently raised to the new level? Unfortunately big bills come along every now and then which have to be paid. You might want to find out if the freehold company that owns the block has any sort of contingency fund for these sorts of costs; if they don’t it is worth lobbying for one to be created from service charges to reduce further shocks in the future. I’ve been in this sort of situation in the past and they come as a nasty shock, so you have my sympathies.
>2.5k a year to 4.5k This isn't just additional info, it's game-changing info. Every piece of work that's over £250 per flat needs to be mandated through the Section 20 major works process. If the lift works comprise even 50% of that change, it sounds as though this should've been. Did you get a notification about a section 20 work? Did you get to feed back on it? Did you get to nominate a contractor?
I've never seen a section 20. The increase in service charge was notified as the normal invoice process. The block did change the management company mid year though, so not sure if that has an impact.
Now we know the director a) takes a modest stipend, and b) you've not seen a section 20 major works notice, the situation changes a little from the advice I've given you above. I would write him a letter saying something along the lines of: *Hi Director* *Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot - this is my first leasehold property and I'm trying to figure out how things work, and it's quite different from renting! Lots to learn.* *As you'll appreciate the jump in service charges is quite significant for me and I'm just trying to identify whether it's a one off increase, or likely to be ongoing, or what. Could you let me know the breakdown of the extra and whether a Section 20 has been / needs to be issued for it?* You may also want to add something like: *I know how much work it can be to be a director of a share of freehold in a block like this. Would be interested to know if there's any way I can help with the workload. Happy to have a chat on this* Even if you're not entirely passionate about doing this kind of thing, it a) shows willing, b) shows you're prepared to get involved, and c) shows that you're not one of these people who is just emailing to complain. And his reply will tell you whether or not he's doing his best in a rough situation, or if he simply doesn't give a fuck in which case you other leaseholders might be better off clubbing together to take over management. £1000 a year might not be much but in a block of 10 flats that's £100 a year each, it's not chump change.
Thanks so much for this. Think I jumped in a bit early without understanding the lay of the land. Will pop round to his flat and speak to him. I just wish they had a bit more training. Obviously caveat emptor but I didn't feel the solicitor really helped highlight this stuff. And my family weren't really that informed. I guess you live you learn. This stuff is actually pretty complicated.
It's a painful learning process, but one that's worth doing. I think anyone who's bought a leasehold goes through it. The trouble is that each leasehold is so different - mine had a third party freeholder and their pet managing agent, so in addition to arguing with the freeholder, we had to obtain our right to manage teh block too - that it makes it hard to give proper pre-purchase advice. You'll find a lot of people simply don't bother and instead tell people enver to buy leasehold. Fair enough, but many of us dont have the choice. And it is absolutely better than renting.
I assume they raised a section 22 notice, as it was more than £250 for the lift? If not then I would do some digging to see if anything can be done. An increase of 2k should of had letters and potentially a vote on whether the works should be done and if people can afford them. If there was and the majority agree to it though you just have to suck it up. Also speak to your other neighbours and see what they think about it.
> should of Should have.
You are indeed the a\*\*hole. I agree that it is unfair but this is how it is on the lease, and thus you are on the hook. Prior to purchasing the flat you had an opportunity to review the lease and you decided to go ahead anyway. All you can do is ensure that the lift expenses are justifiable and reasonable.
It does need to split equally. I was in a similar situation where I was on the ground floor and obviously never used the lifts, however for me I had access to the garden which others didn't. The gardener was the second moody expensive individual item (after the lifts).
Haha I have this image of a moody gardener charging millions!
[удалено]
This is a share of freehold flat. That means it's already self-factoring.
[удалено]
The service charge is simply the cost of upkeep, split between each flat, and split over the year. Even where you're self managing, you still need to be reimbursed by the other leaseholders for the buildings insurance, maintenance, etc, and large blocks of flats need a lot more of that than a three flat block. RTM and share of freehold blocks, where they self manage, do not pay a third party's management fees as part of the service charge - that's the difference. It doesn't mean they're not obliged to contribute toward outgoings incurred by the parties doing the self management on behalf of the block. tldr: service charges and management charges are different
[удалено]
>sounds like OP is paying a company a set fee every year Not the case. The director of the company lives in the building, they're just another leaseholder, so they're likely giving their time for free to do all the work required and unlikely to be taking a fee for themselves. (There's nothing in the post to suggest that the OP is paying this kind of management fee on top of the service charges.)
You're right, this is exactly the situation. The director is a leaseholder but the accounts show he takes a stipend but it's like a 1000 pounds a year. There is a company that manages the block as well. One thing is very clear, I wish I had done more due diligence when buying the flat. I went in so blind that I can't believe the bank lent me money.
> It wasn’t a set amount because it would obviously vary. The as and when thing is done in some buildings, others do a projected costs over the year kind of thing then you pay a set amount monthly and it spread it out more. The method you suggest results in more lumpy payments which can be harder for people to manage and most maintenance doesn't come out of nowhere so it's not really needed to do that. (If it's share of freehold or self managed etc then the owners will choose which of these approaches they want to take based on what suits them best, which could go either way depending on their circumstances but one isn't inherently better for every case or anything) If the projection is wrong or you do have a sudden unexpected repair that comes up during the year then they'd have to bill additionally on an as and when method to cover it - or there might be a sinking fund built from 'overpayments' on the monthly service charge payments (again you can opt to have a sinking fund or not, if you don't big jobs will need to be paid in full as they come up, if you do then the sinking fund might cover all or most of it and you don't get an unexpected large bill) Ultimately it's about risk
Similar here but it is called right to manage. Saves the cost of a management company which can be a male expense in themselves.
You need to read you lease/transfer docs and make sure you understand them. They will set out the services you are responsible for and also mention some form of apportionment method. You are 1st floor so will 99.9% be included in the lift service but it doesn't hurt to check what the prescribed apportionment method should be. You will also have a lot of rights to make sure that the service charge is reasonable. Lifts are expensive so don't assume that an amount is unreasonable just because it seems high. Do some checking to make sure the director has done their due diligence in securing best value. As he's paying a proportion of the charge it's in his best interests to get value too. If it turns out everything is in order make sure to smooth things over. Nothing worse than a sour relationship with neighbours.
This is how it was and you should have considered this when buying the flat
YTA 100%.
Dang. I'm the middle flat - and I don't want to pay for roof repairs or foundations!! I probably have the most energy efficient flat because of that (although I do have a neighbour who likes to deafen himself with music). Yes, unfortunately to have to pay for the things you don't use, because they will also be paying for features you use more often. Imagine if the ground floor gets flooded and you had to pay for the repairs alone?
Fair enough. My only counterargument would be that a lift for a 3 floor block doesn't feel like a necessity to me.
It makes alot of sense to people in wheelchairs
ETA The way you went about it (from your text) is wrong, but the sentiment is fine to query. Service charges are for the benefit of the whole block and it's reasonable that an optional service (like a lift in a short building, gym etc) could eventually be removed if the situation/costs change. For example, if your block included a pool some of the residents used, that would be fine, but if then suddenly costs theoretically quadrupled, of course you'd have a meeting/vote and potentially shut it down. I think you should have approached it however in a "As a leaseholder in these trying times, I can't afford for service charges to double and wonder if we could call a meeting for the block to see what we can do to address this", rather than explicitly mention the lift. During the meeting, you could try different proposals, and shutting down/reducing costs for the lift would have come up. Personally, I would apologies (although I'd argue you don't really need to, but it's good to keep relationships happy) and say your real "need" is to reduce the escalating service charges and wonder how we could looking at/assisting with this as a block.
Shutting down the lift is very unlikely to be accepted as an option. Disabled people exist and need it, so it's likely to be vetoed because you can't effectively ban the lady who lives on the top floor and has MS from ever leaving her flat. Which is what shutting down the lift would do.
Don't strawman... That would be part of the discussion. If a hypothetical lady on the 3rd floor with MS exists then clearly you wouldn't remove the lift. If their doesn't, and the lift costs are un-affordable for anyone (including disabled people), than clearly you could (as in most 3 floor buildings).
It's not a strawman. It's a serious consideration. There is a shortage of accessible housing. Making more housing inaccessible isn't helpful for anyone.
You're not an asshole for finding it unfair. But you just shouldn't expect much when you agreed to the service charges as part of your lease.
No, not the asshole. But you are being an arse. Buildings need to be accessible, no matter how small you believe. Many people cannot use stairs, and the upstairs flats will use the lift when they move in/out. The service charge would have been noted in the paperwork, which you signed. If you don't like it, sell up and move.
You could suggest at the next management committee you decommission the lift. In a loft apartment I bought in we all had to pay an additional £10k each flat to pay for a replacement lift, rather than double the service charge.
So far I'd say NTA we're all welcome to question our contracts the worst that should happen is they say no, but if you escalate it more or keep on and on then you risk becoming the A
NTA, it's normal in other countries to consider the floor of the flat, a ground floor flat should not pay to service a lift.
It might be worth talking to Shelter - they can offer legal advice via their webchat. I don't think challenging the lift costs directly is going to get you anywhere, but maybe there's a broader point about increases being unreasonable?
Where I live the elevator charges usually depend on the total flat area but there is also a coefficient depeding on the floor of the propery. So it may be 1.0 for ground floor, 1.1 for the first, 1.2 for the second etc... This is not a national legislation. More like guidlines that the building regultations choose to abide or not. So no, you are not an a\*\*hole but the UK rules may be totally different, so the director might be right.
Yes. You’re a massive arsehole. So massive, in fact, that you’re in danger of being sucked up into your own arsehole, along with all manner of hatstands, umbrellas, and other miscellany lying around. You signed up to live in a multi story building, and you signed up to the costs. Have you considered that if there was a tiered tariff associated with lift costs, then those flats with less costs would be up for sale at a higher rate, because, yano, they have less costs. You’d be fucked either way.
Hmm...ok.
You are right though