When I moved into my partners flat in 2004 no-one actually knew where the freeholder was. At the time my partner purchased it in 1989, the property had both a freeholder and a managing agent but what wasn’t divulged was that other leaseholders had taken them to court for not carrying out repairs, despite taking the money.
When I moved in, the managing agents were still contactable (just), so I decided we should start from scratch, writing to them to tell them we had a major problem with water leaking into the kitchen. I asked for clarification on both the amount owned by our flat, and a breakdown of the large amount of monies they said were outstanding for the entire block.
After a number of e-mails sent to various addresses and some telephone calls, someone eventually came to visit us and by this time we also had water leaking into the living room from a number of areas.
2005
In 2005 I wrote to my local council, explaining the situation to them and asking if they rented out any of the properties, and if so, did they have any contact with the freeholder?
In the meantime I found how much we were personally liable to pay under leaseholder legislation (the 18-month rule) and we started to make small payments to show willing. This didn’t last for very long because we received no receipts and no work was carried out! Even when the amount paid was reduced, they didn’t even ask why!
Eventually we were assigned a Community Protection Officer from the council. She carried out a thorough inspection of the roof, writing reports and taking photograps. This led to her serving a notice on the managing agents under s190 (1a) of the Housing Act 1985 (notice to excute repairs to a part of a building containing a flat in a state of disrepair but not unfit).
The notice said that our flat was in such a state of disrepair that, although not unfit for human habitation, the condition of the part of the building outside the flat, comprising of the water storage tank above the flat, the roof area below the water storage tank and the roof area above the front door of the flat is such as to interfere materially with the personal comfort of the persons occupying the flat. As the persons having direct control of the part of the building concerned you are required under s180 (2) of the Housing Act 1985 to carry out the works specified in the Schedule to this notice and to complete them within 3 months.
2006
Baroness Andrews Replies To Our MP
After writing to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minster about our situation, our MP received a reply from Baroness Andrews who said that it was precisely because of similiar situations to ours that Government felt it was necessary to introduce a number of wide-ranging provisions to strengthen the rights of leaseholders in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. She went on to explain what those measures were and what the terms of our lease should explain. She also said that if freeholders fail to turn up to court this should not deter a court from issuing a repair order but I couldn’t even track whether one had even been issued let alone ignored becase of the amount of time that had elapsed.
Baroness Andrews then went on to say that council powers were strengthened by the Housing Act 1988 which can require a landlord to start work on a certain date and also stipulate a completion date. They can also take a landlord to court for failing to comply with a repair notice and it’s not just council tenants who can get the council to take such actions.
She finished by saying that we may wish to make a complaint to the council and if dissatisfied with the response, we can then escalate our case to the Housing Ombudsman.
Case Closed!
A response also came from the Council’s Housing Standards but that only confirmed the intitial complaint I made in early 2005, what steps were carried out, and that I had been informed that nothing further could be done. As far as they were concerned, the case was closed and was regarded as such.
Not Good Enough!
I still felt that our situation hadn’t been properly addressed under the circumstances so I again wrote to the Council Leader and copied in Baroness Andrews.
I wondered why, when Baroness Andrews had stated that the powers of the Council were increased under the Housing Act 1988 and you didn’t need to be a council tenant for the Council to take action, why our situation was not pursued.
I made reference to Right to Manage not being an option as most of the flats were sublet, and when someone did send letters to all those he could find suggesting we get together to try and sort the problems ourselves, only 3 people responded, my partner and two other owner/occupiers!
I also drew attention to the ‘prejudical to health’ element of the initial notices to the managing agents and said that surely having no lights on the stairwell would come under the Council’s remit?
I finished by asking why there was no available legislation to impose immediate penalties on the managing parties.
We Send A Solicitors Letter To Everyone
In an attempt to get other leaseholders to react to the plight of the development, our solicitor (that we hired out of our own pocket) sent a letter to all of them advising of our concerns that the lease obligations had not been fulfilled by the landlord and his managing agents. I had established that the buildings insurance had lapsed and if there should be a fire there would be no money to repair or reinstate the building, with the investments of everyone possibly being prejudiced. At our request our solicitor asked all leaseholders to take the matter up with their own lenders as soon as possible.
The letter went on to state that there was quite clearly an urgent need to repair various parts of the building of which three points were highlighted:
1) The roof is in need of urgent repair and despite repeated requests to the managing agents no action has been taken. Whilst it may not immediately affect you, if not repaired it will harm the building as a whole during the course of time;
2) The water tanks need replacing; 
3) There is a crack in the wall of the building which is widening and may cause that wall to fall over, possibly injuring someone or at least damaging the building. Even if it does not fall over it needs to be repaired as soon as possible.
The letter finished by advising that whilst the local authority is looking into these matters this takes time.
Unfortunately there was little or no response.
Water In The Electrics? Surely A Health And Safety Issue!
I had to write to the council again (in frustration and in a bit of a panic) because a heavy storm had led to water entering our electrical supply, which in turn blew out our ringmains!
I said that we had already sought legal advice (spending several hundred pounds in doing so) only to be told that we could either get ourselves in debt to the tune of around £20,000 to go to court, with no guarantee of a result in our favour, (which to me beggared belief) or take the time-consuming legislative routes available, which in terms of getting this particular situation resolved could not seriously be an option!
Building Control – A Basic Structural Survey
The leader of our council had said in earlier correspondence that he would see if the Legal Team would refer the issues of Wellington Mansions to the Building Control Team and ask if there was anything they could do to assist.
This led to them attending the development and carrying out a basic structural survey. We received a letter on their findings which stated that several cracks on the balustrading were a mix of some which had developed over time and others which were quite recent. None of them were in a serious enough condition to warrant immediate actions but Building Control were concerned enough state they would write to to write to the managing agents bringing the problems to their attention.
Although a detailed structural or conditions survey had not been carried out, the building was found to be generally structurally sound, notwithstanding the problems of the walkway parapets. Whilst its understood there are long-standing problems with deteriorating roof coverings, penetration of damp through the roof decking will inevitably lead to a weakening of the roof structure.
The letter went on to state that it was very evident that little maintenance work had been carried out on the property with the rainwater goods (gutters and down-pipes) being defective and in poor condition, allowing the external walls in places to become saturated, no doubt encouraging damp inside several of the flats.
Some of the walkway soffits were also deteriorating rapidly, with fractures and holes appearing. The presence of asbestos sheeting should also be surveyed and checked for. In a building of this age, asbestos materials were commonly used and whilst not normally a problem if left disturbed and remains in a sound condition, it can become a health issue if not identified and left to deteriorate unchecked.
The letter also noted the low ground level retaining wall at the side of the property, which also forms the boundary wall to a common area walkway. Concern was expressed at the degree of lean of this wall, which could rapidly fail if allowed to reach its stability threshold.
Notice Sent To Managing Agents From Council’s Building Control
Building Control sent a notice to the managing agents, (under Part 6 (miscellaneous) (Part 4) of the London Local Authorities Act 2000 and the London Building Acts (Amended Act) 1939 Part vii (Dangerous and Defective Structures) drawing their attention to the defects noted at the recent inspection.
The notice went on to state that urgent action was required and they have been brought to the attention of the managing parties in order for them to take steps to remedy them. It is also in order to avoid the need for the Council to take action under dangerous structure proceedings.
The notice finished by requesting a reply with the next 14 days.
First Notification Of Managing Agents Strike Off
Now whether this had anything to do with the constant attention of the council I don’t know but the first notification of strike-off of our managing agent appeared in section 652 of the London Gazette which means our managing agents are due to be struck off the Companies House Register in April. I lodged an objection to this (for a number of reasons) and also sent a number of documents showing the business activities of our freeholder and his family over a number of years. I was hoping that their Compliance Department would be interested in looking into them.
I was however advised that Companies House are only able to write to ‘live’ companies on the register in respect of overdue accounts and annual returns or alleged breaches of the Companies Act.
Whilst they have no investigative powers they are an Executive Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry which has a Company Investigations Branch (CIB) with
the responsibility for conducting investigations into companies using the statutory powers of enquiry contained in the Companies Act 1985.
On contacting them I was advised that when they receive a complaint it goes through a vetting process to decide whether it merits an investigation. This means they will consider my complaint, take into account any other information they have, and decide whether or not to carry out a formal investigation.
What Use Were The CBI? None!
In correspondence to me they highlighted the importance of confidentiality which basically meant that they can’t enter into any public debate on the merits of complaints, they will not confirm or deny that an investigation into a particular company is taking or has taken place and they will not tell me what the outcome of the complaint is!
We Fall Into A Large Black Hole!
I wrote to my local MP and the leader of the council again because by now, after extensive research I had determined that none of the legislative routes available to us could be used to rectify our situation. Collective enfranchisement (a group of leaseholders buying the freehold) wasn’t viable due to the difficulty in tracing leaseholders who had sublet, and the lack of interest and support from those we did find – not to mention the cost.
Compulsory acquisition of the freeholder was not an option for the same reasons.
Right to Manage wasn’t an option, even though as a no-fault process it was far less expensive than any other option, the reasons remained the same.
An LVT-appointed manager also wasn’t viable, not just because of the above reasons but because taking this route usually comes with the recommendation that professional representation is sought, which, as we were the only ones wanting to fix things, we couldn’t afford. It also requires an agent to be found before the process is started and I had previously approached an independent property company specialising in the management of blocks of flats with a view to trying to take this option. They weren’t interested either, on the grounds that not only was there a lack of support and interest but that the building had been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair that a large amount of monies would be required up front to start works and to obtain the legally required buildings insurance and the potential difficulty in tracing owners and getting them to start paying expensive service charges (expensive due to the years of neglect).
I asked we were supposed to go from here when we have spent 22 months to date trying to get our situation resolved with the limited assistance of our solicitor, LEASE and other bodies and have now fallen into a very large black hole. I finished by asking if we could be directed to a higher office.
MP Writes To The Chief Environmental Health Officer
My MP remained concerned enough to personally write to the Chief Environmental Health Officer in September 2006 in which he said that our problems were complicated even further by the fact that most of the leaseholders sub-let, so most of the occupiers have no direct relationship with the agents, are relatively transitory and so are unlikely to be prepared to join in any formal actions. He also said that if the managing parties were not prepared to carry out the work when they had a notice served on them then the work should be carried out and they should be forced to pay the bills.
The council leader accepted that the legislative process had failed us. He was therefore happy to raise the issues on my behalf with his parliamentary party colleagues so that the matter could be brought to the attention of the appropriate people in government. He also said a change in the current law may be the only solution.