We Need Your Help With Answering FAQ’s
Filed in Uncategorized on Feb.21, 2010
We’re in the process of putting together a list of Frequently Asked Questions “FAQ’s” to help answer those common questions that most of us have, in regards to dealing with Peverel, RTM’s and LVT’s.
So if you have a question, that you’d like us to publish and have answered by the other contributors to TheTruthAboutSolitaire, feel free to e-mail us, but in the mean time, here are a couple of the questions we’ve been asked so far and would appreciate contributors helping to answer them, because us ‘admins’ don’t know it all!
What is the ‘Summary of Facts’, that we ask ask Oval for when contacting them about Insurances?
What is the s27A Proceedings?
February 21st, 2010 at 9:05 pm
A leasehold valuation tribunal “LVT” derives its powers from a handful of Acts of Parliament and generally tribunals receive applications under one of those Acts. 27A refers to a section of the Landlord & Tenants Act 1985 “LATA85″ and relates to the “Liability to pay, and the reasonableness of, service charges”.
A tenant or a landlord may apply to the tribunal to seek a determination on:
* the person(s) by whom the service charges is payable;
* the person(s) to whom it is payable;
* the amount which is payable;
* the date on or by which it is payable;
* the manner in which it is payable.
The service charges may be charges already paid or proposed charges.
An application under 27A will lead invariably to other sections of LATA85 such as section 19 which deals with the limitation of charges and their reasonableness and/or section 20 which deals with consultation requirements usually for Major Works.
27A is in simple terms the “umbrella” for the other parts of LATA85 or the entry point for the application to the LVT. This is why its called the 27A application.
That’s the short answer.
February 21st, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Here’s three starters:
A step-by-step lesson in how to challenge the insurance scam?
What’s the difference between LVT and RPTS?
What should I do when I get an unjustified demand?
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:55 pm
What’s the difference between LVT and RPTS? :
RPTS is short for “Residential Property Tribunal Service” which is a government department. Some time ago the government formed this department to take the load from the county court system. There are five offices around the country – London, Manchester, Birmingham, Cambridge and Chichester. An “LVT” (leasehold valuation tribunal) is a tribunal and is usually conducted by three people, a Chairman and two others forming a “panel”. Usually the panel members consist of a surveyor, a lawyer and a layperson. The lawyer is usually the chairman. The RPTS offices are staffed by clerks and the panel members.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:26 pm
A few ideas for now:
1.Which is the best to use for the services of RTM, or LVT or Legal Court System . They all have limited powers so one can decide what is best to use. I think it will be best for me to use Court system rather then LVT.
-Like has Arthur has described the act 27 A and various sections . Which one is best for what.
-Examples of the different forms how to fill them and when to submit.
-List of professional who can help the developments or inhouse help so we are on the winning team.
2.How to go about getting all the name and address of the leaseholders when usually half them are rented out.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Michael Epstein
You should have been a comedian on T V, aerials
February 24th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Nicky Vogg asks the key question. “How to go about getting all the name and address of the leaseholders when usually half them are rented out.” I don’t know how typical our block is but it is now made up of 20% owner-residents, 20% owned pied-a-terre, and 60% investor-owned rented-out. Present owners have homes on five continents. Finding all these ‘buy-to letters’ is a very big nut to crack and was for me the single biggest problem.
The developer originally sold 70% of the block in Honk Kong in one of the things that has gone wrong in our society. The developer was not building and selling homes but financial investment units. It sold the freehold to PeverelOM which co-wrote the lease giving itself tremendous powers starting with appointing itself as building manager and deciding what and when work should be done. In our case we have no residents committee and had no way of forming one without knowing the leaseholders. PeverelOM has always assumed that it is invulnerable and cannot be expecting anything other than continuing submission from us. My tactics may not have worked in a larger development. Even though relatively small it still took a long time so if possible try and share the work. When I started I was aiming at RTM and RTE and thought there was a good chance that the resident/pied a terre owners would agree with me to get me close to the target. I’m not sure that at the time I knew about LVT and certainly, until it was discussed on TTAS, had never heard of RPTS.
This was my approach:
1) Identify, get to know, and have good relations with the other residents and discuss Peverel with them
2) Identify and befriend the pied a terres.
3) Search the Land Registry site http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/ for an extract of the title of the flats where the owner is unknown. It costs £4 each for each flat. Yes the whole exercise costs money and time. You will feel like a politician seeking votes! You will also discover that many investors have given their investment flat as their own home when it patently is not.
4) Post a letter through the letter box of sub-tenants stating you are looking for the named owner and asking the sub tenant for the owner’s email and street address, and particularly the named person in the letting agency. Tell them why you are looking and try and establish some common ground e.g. I park next to you or we met in the park/supermarket
5) Knock on the sub-tenant’s door and follow up. They probably won’t answer but they might. My experience was that half the sub-tenants were fantastically helpful, as Peverel excludes them from requesting help and they are very frustrated with the service situation. The other half were totally unresponsive and possibly short duration tenants.
6) Keep your eyes open for lettings in the building and try contacting the letting agency. Save and file lettings on your PC for later reference.
7) Visit the letting agency where the sub-tenant has given you a contact, explain what you are trying to do, and ask if they will forward an email from you to the named owner. Even then the owner may not reply. All the letting agents except one were extremely helpful and sympathetic to the cause.
What ‘Andy’ ought to realise is that if you have to make an investment of this amount of time then it doesn’t matter what he says any more. After many years of being fobbed off I’m no longer listening.
February 28th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
1. Based on a previous problem of being unable to sell a flat with the service charge account heavily in debt, I found that if you apply to the County Court for judgement on a matter involving a decision on service charges, the Judge will ask for the case to be transferred to the LVT. So if it is any matter falling under the Landlord & Tenant Act , then you may as well start at the LVT.
2. Contacting leaseholders is a big problem if most flats in block are sublet. Neil is right about how difficult it can be trying to make contact and some rental tenants often fail to pass on the letter to the “leaseholder”.
But first step is to write to the management company and and freeholder to ask for the list of addresses for contacting to organise a “freehold purchase”.( you have this right to serve a “Discovery Notice”). You can also demand to inspect the service charge documents by appointment and get the addresses during inspection.
Second step is to write a letter to all the leaseholders asking for support for (1) setting up RTM and (2) collective purchase of the freehold if sufficient support by leaseholders AND have a return slip with name and contact details.
Third step is to knock on the doors with letters and get the reply slip signed for owner occupiers and posted on by tenant if the flat is rented out.
For RTM to succeed , you need 51% support willing to pay 50 pds starting expenses but best to work for 60% support in case one or two change their minds.
For RTE, this is more difficult as you may be asking for several thousand pounds. So it is best to get RTM first which will remove the freeholder’s management company out of the way except for annual ground rent collection.
February 28th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Bruce
Helpful information. I too know of an arears of service charges case where the judge passed it to an LVT (still outstanding). A LEASE solicitor told me that the reason this is done is because the County Court cannot pass judgement on the “reasonableness” of the service charges – only an LVT has this power.
With regard to pecentages for RTM and RTE – I believe that the percentage is 50% in each case (apart from a Right of First Refusal – where the landlord / freeholder has by law to offer the freehold to leaseholders when it is being sold on the open market -this requires 51 percent or more.)
But as you rightly say – it’s better to have a higher % in favour.
Unfortunately RTM and RTE require 2 different types of companies – so the leaseholders who have undertaken RTM have to set up another company to buy the freehold (it is this nominated company that becomes the new freeholder and all participating leaseholders have a share in the company and maintain their leasehold status, but as leaseholders of their own company).
March 6th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Could not agree more that contacting leaseholders and convincing them that there is a solution to their problem is the most difficult part of RTM. The company formation and notice serving are really quite straightforward. I found the Land Registry information of limited use as it was often many years out of date. I tried a discovery notice on Solitaire but they claimed they could not release the information because of the Data Protection Act which is wrong. After months of chasing they eventually released the names but no addresses but this only slowed us up not stopped us as enough of the owners were in the phone book to get our 50% and be free.