Will This Contributor Get A Reply From ‘Andy’ Now?
By admin | August 31st, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 20 commentsOver the Bank Holiday weekend we received the following message from a contributor to TTAS, asking for us to try and help them get a response from Solitaire’s Online Feedback Manager – ‘Andy’ in regards to their complaint.
Hi there.
I was wondering if you might be able to get ‘Andy’ to respond about this.
Since an LVT decision was handed down on the 7th of May http://www.rpts.gov.uk/Files/2010/May/11002QYB.pdf) we had been chasing Estates and Management (E&M) who were chasing Solitaire to provide a completion statement for cessation of services. After several missed completion dates the final date was the 27th of August for completion and the transfer of the freehold from E&M to us.
The transfer of the freehold occurred however Solitaire have refused to provide a completion statement as requested by the leaseholders and the freeholder.
They are still intending to charge us for their services despite being advised it is to be terminated.
They have been advised by the previous freeholder E&M, they had been advised by our solicitor, and also by myself in chasing with them all of us had advised the 27th of August is the date that their services are to completed (the transfer from Peverel E&M of the freehold to us the leaseholders).
Solitaire called our Solicitor on the 26th of August and advised that this was the first that they had heard of this request and that they will not be providing a completion report and will continue to act as our property management company.
Rather absurd as the LVT decision (Link provided above) clearly shows that Solitaire Property Management Group was at the tribunal and that they have known all about out intent to complete and be absolved of them.
We the freeholders (and the leaseholders) do not want Solitiare to provide any service. We had advised several completion dates to which they should provide a completion report, all of which were missed and as such they are now going to continue to charge us for unwanted, unrequested ‘services’ beyond the 27th of August.
It is ridiculous that a property management company can refuse the request of the freeholder, leaseholders and solicitors for a completion statement, let alone claim to not be aware of this.
Our contact at Solitaire is our Property Manager: HD (*Admin edit – PMC name abbreviated).
Is this something that the you can help push Solitiare so that we can finally be free of Peverel? They are intent on remaining our property management company and charging us for the priveldge.
Regards,
RK
Having exchanged correspondence with RK, we were then advised this morning (Tuesday 31 August) that Peverel have written into RK’s development leases that Solitaire as the management company is a party to the lease, (which eliminates RK’s ability to have freedom of choice and choose a capable company, so that to have someone else would be a violation of the lease arrangements, talk about a monoply amongst their group).
Apparently, Peverel are holding firm that they cannot be removed and will do all they can to keep making money from them.
Are there any other TTAS contributors / visitors that have reviewed their leases to find that it is a tri-party lease and have SPM listed as a party and therefore, makes the removal of these companies even more difficult? If so, do let us know.
In the meantime, we anticipate that RK will finally receive the reply that they have been waiting for from ‘Andy’, from us publicly posting this complaint / case.
Although – prior to ‘Andy’ asking for help identifying RK’s development, the RPTS link above provides you with all the information you require.
How would we be able to find out if we have a tri-party lease? Is there a certain section to look for or any specific wording?
There is a section in the lease that states the management company, which is the lot of straws that they are holding onto. The latest they have said is: The reason for this is the Management Company is a party to the lease for 12,14 & 16 Hull close and as such the managing agent is not appointed by the freeholder BUT is instead, as far as the law is concerned, appointed by the Management Company.
This means that as the freeholder there is no right to choose who manages your property, and the only avenue that they are proposing is to setup a Right To Manage Company.
As mentioned on another thread I have reviewed my lease and it is indeed a tri-party lease. Reading through it I understand that Peverel are included as the ‘manager’ and cannot be removed for 5 years after the last apartment was sold by the Developer (Barratt Homes). After this 5 year period it says that the lessees are free to serve notice on the manager as long as written evidence is provided of votes cast.
If this is enforced then it means even RTM will not save us until the 5 years is up. This is interesting given that when we met our property manager he repeatidly said it was a tri-party lease and that if we were that unhappy we could go RTM. It seems that this is not the case and i’m in no doubt that the property manager knows this.
Reading through the lease makes me wonder why I ever agreed to a document which is so biased towards the freeholder and the manager it is untrue. I was a first time buyer and very naive – something that personally I think developers and managing agents bank on.
Sanity respectfully suggests that the optimum time to read a lease is prior to purchase when such details can be raised with the conveyancing solicitor. Indeed the conveyancing solicitor may be at fault for not raising the matter with the purchaser.
Prior to any complex legal procedure (including going to LVT) those involved should really have referred back to the lease as a matter of course.
Whilst the LVT process can be spectactularly lenient with unprepared Lessees this should not be relied upon, particularly when the outcome is potentially fatal and or may give rise to a legal challenge or appeal.
To check the terms and wording of this lease find a sample property from the development online at http://www.landreg.gov.uk and download a copy for all of £4.
So you are saying that if it states “The Management Company” anywhere in the lease then it is tri-party? Sorry for the questions, just need to be clear!
on the front page of my lease it lists the parties as the freeholder, myself and then it lists ‘other parties’ and this is where peverel are listed, and on the second page it is confirmed that peverel are included in the lease as the manager.
Newbie here, so be gentle with me………
It’s true what Sanity says above that the conveyancing solicitor should have raised this matter with the purchaser.
Whilst trying to sell my SPM managed property, I have found so many facts that I was naive to as a first time buyer, which I entrusted my Solicitor to advise me off, but didn’t.
In hindsight, I purchased my property as a first timer, in the height of the property boom and to the eyes of a Solicitor, it was an easy transaction to earn a few quid.
Therefore, I think others will find that during this boom period – Solicitors got a little too complacent and skipped over some of the essential facts or were they also in on the ‘scam’?
The developers were also very clever, having found my initial sales paperwork, there was a tick box to say “Management Fees Covered” this wasn’t ticked, but a note written saying £350 per annum!
All in all, I think now – we are all a lot wiser and had it not been for SPM, I’d have sold my property (which has been on the market for two years, about 20 times over!)
However, as my username suggests – our estate agent appears to get great pleasure when showing people around, in saying that the PMC is SPM and I then suddently witness a change of interest in the possible buyers.
The property industry is a rip off, from developers to estate agents, from the management companies to the Government – something needs to be done.
Hammer,
As far as I know, the provisions of the RTM legislation (Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002) do apply in the case of a tri party lease. The 5 year provision of your lease simply means that after 5 years have elapsed, you have the power (by majority) to choose another manager. This is does not stop an RTM process. Ive not seen any cases where a tri party lease has stopped an RTM process.
regards
Arthur, thanks for your response I hope that is the case.
I concur with Arthur Dent, my take is that Statute takes priority over the Lease.
Kind regards,
James Butler Esq – Director
I am not a solicitor and agree with Arthur Dent.
Our lease was between the developer, OM (‘herein called the management company’), and ourselves as the first buyer. It didn’t stop an RTM. The R stands for RIGHT. However nothing in this life is going to be given to you without working for it and you may have to work hard. The CLRA 2002 lays down the criteria that a building has to meet. As far as I can see ‘Tri-lease’ does not enter into the criteria. RTMs are difficult but not impossible to achieve
Sounds like we have a tri-party agreement
Ha Ha, not a damaging one though!
I have received the following confirmation from one of our Solicitors this afternoon:
JAB:
As far as I am aware, the provisions of the Right To Manage legislation (Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002) apply in the case of a tri party lease (Developer – Managing Agent – Leaseholder). Are you aware of any reason why even if the Managing Agents of a property are written into the lease by the Developer they may not be removed? I would think that statute rules over the lease in such a case?
LEGAL:
You are correct. See section 92 CLRA 2002
(2) Management functions which a person who is landlord under a lease of the whole or any part of the premises has under the lease are instead functions of the RTM company.
(3) And where a person is party to a lease of the whole or any part of the premises otherwise than as landlord or tenant, management functions of his under the lease are also instead functions of the RTM company.
Hope that this helps to remove any confusion.
Kind regards,
James Butler Esq – Director
Andy,
Can you hel me lease. I am having roblems with my comuter keyboard. It seems that Everel have taken the “P”
RTM OR A SECTION 24 APPLICATION TO AN LVT (APPOINT/DISCHARGE A MANGER) OVERRIDES ANY TERM IN A CONTRACT SO GO FOR IT!
Dear ‘resident at city heights’,
Thanks for your confirmation of the thoughts expressed with respect to Statute vs. Lease terms and conditions. I’m sure that with your landmark LVT case that City Heights residents would know better than most of us how it all works!
I had asked on a previous thread about any updates on the City Heights LVT case? Particularly seeing as it appeard that Solitaire were not abiding by the LVT judgement – any news now? Thanks.
The good news is that in March of 2011 Peverel ceded to us. They are not a party to the lease thier claims were vexatious and we as the freeholder are able to remove them by issuing a termination notice. Its a shame that Peverel legal team fails to understand leases and that it took ~7 months for them to see this.
Robert – congratulations. Can you explain your circumstances a bit further – have you enfranchised at some stage, which allows you to dismiss the previous party to the management lease ?
Stroof,
Interesting question.
When I wrote to Peverel OM back in early 2009 in connection with a Right if First Refusal on the freehold, they stated that purchasing the freehold would NOT give us the right to get rid of them as manager.
I believed that at the time! More fool me.