Unfair fees for Deed of covenant after 18years of renting my flat

Surprised no one on this forum has mentioned that the leasehold tribunal has ruled on this and set a precedent in several cases that 40 pounds is a reasonable charge. Mant management companies ignore this, relying on the ignorance of the leaseholder. A reminder to the management company of these rulings should bring them into line.

Reply to the comment left by "Tony Lilleystone" at "20/05/2015 - 18:54":

" And I suspect the present government would be strongly influenced by the big property companies which own many freehold reversions." Perhaps I could disabuse you of your "suspicion" and turn it into an absolute dead certainty. Homeground Management Llimited - one director since inception, The Honourable William Waldorf Astor, not sure whether it's the son or the father. If it's the latter he his Samantha Cameron's step father which makes him Dave's father in law.

Reply to the comment left by "Bill Williams" at "23/05/2015 - 09:13":

Hi Bill, Thank you very much for your comments. So do I understand that the leasehold tribunal has ruled and has set precedent that £40.00 is a reasonable charge in several cases? Are these recent ruling? How long ago was this rulings?
I appreciate it very much , if you could let me know. Thanks

Of course I will mention this £40.00 ruling by the leasehold tribunal to the Freeholders. But I don't think they will agree. As they already have told me that if I don't accept the £150.00+ VAT charge, I can deal with their solicitors directly and pay their solicitors £900.00 +VAT

How much does it cost me to go to the tribunal?
How long does it take for the tribunal ruling?
and what is involved?
Do I need a legal representative?

I really appreciate it, if you could give me a reply. Thanks

I have never been to any court or this sort of things. I just can see me standing there with the Freeholders soicitors and ending up paying their legal costs as well. God what a nightmare!

Thank a lot

A thought re the company structure (ord shares, A shares etc). From what little I know about this area isn't it most common for an owner managed companyy to be established on a managed by guaranteee basis rather than by shares? The former isn't subject to corporation tax but can't distribute "profits" as they are intended as a not for profit structure, any excess would simply be held as reserves. If NOT on that basis it would be worth investigating what was the justification, if not actual legality, for certain freeholders to advantage themselves by the creation of the dual structure thus effectively diminishing the value of the remaining freeholds (it isn't clear from the OP's original post if the freehold was purchased from the original landlord before or after buying the flat). I think you need a company law expert to review the background to this before getting bogged down in the present iniquities.

Reply to the comment left by "money manager" at "24/05/2015 - 12:27":

Ah, this is very interesting. I asked, why there is this differentiation, with people owning 'A' shares ( with dividends) , 'B' shares ( without dividends ), and others just without any shares.
Their answer was that in 1992, the Freeholders sold shares to who ever wanted to pay for it and get a share of the Freehold.
They then set up a Property Management Company.
As there are 100 flats in 5 blocks.
The story is that 82 bought a Share in the property Management company and they got 'A' shares in the new company.
14 'B' shares were kept by the original Freeholders. They kept a couple of "B' shares in each of the 5 blocks. ( I presume to have their claws in the leaseholders to
have control of the blocks.
4 people that did not participate in this scheme, were not given any shares.
Apparently if the management company went bust, the 'B' shareholders have no responsibility what so ever, whereas the 'A' shareholders have responsibility.
To me all this seems too complicated. I am sure, we go back to the rich & powerful, having the law on their side and get big law firm to sort it all out, in their advantage.
Frankly I am baffled by all of this!!
Does any of this makes any sense to those of you who have more expertise in this area?
Any reply would be much appreciated. thanks

Reply to the comment left by "Oval ball Rugby" at "24/05/2015 - 18:15":

But you have described yourself as a freeholder. On the share structure you have outlined you should be an A class shareholder? Presumably the four who did not particiapte are actually still leaseholders? If you are not a shareholder (on the only basis available according to your post) then you are not a freeholder and might need to have words with your conveyancing solicitor if your paperwork suggests otherwise. As well as the shareholding I think you need to review the voting structure a well. I don't understand the purpose of those B shares as either the original freeholder's interest was bought or it was not. I revert to my original recommendation, get authoritative legal advice.

Reply to the comment left by "Oval ball Rugby" at "24/05/2015 - 10:49":

You do not have the expertise or time to even think about going down the legal route. You have to make time to get involved as a director and try and either understand the rules and then agree with the logic or try and get backing to change the rules.
Being a director need not be onerous with a number of meetings a year which vary from Management Co to Management Co..
It is your investment and sometimes you have to get involved to protect your investment.

.

Reply to the comment left by "David Aneurin" at "24/05/2015 - 21:12":

"Frankly I am baffled by all of this!!" As OBR recognises his confusion he might not have the expertise to navigate his way to a directorship. From what has been described there could be a fair bit of anomosity toward someone trying to "muscle in" on what might be a bit of a cabal. Forewarned is forearmed and a fully informed third party could at least explain the position clearly and disspationately; there do appear to be inconsistencies, for example, between the alledged liability of directors (limited by guarantee) and the distribution of profits (limited by shares), are the B shares still relevant (apparently used where a developer still has unsold units/freeholds) which give overall control to the original freeholder until they are.

Reply to the comment left by "money manager" at "24/05/2015 - 18:40":

Thanks for your comments. Yes I am one of the 'A' shareholders, for what is with, along with 83 other people. But this does not seem to carry any weight. Of course as David Aneurin suggests can put my name forward and become a director. in the next AGM which is next year. I appreciate it, if someone can help with the following questions:

1- I n the mean time should I be paying this £150.00 + VAT each time I have a new tenant or renew the existing tenant?

2- If I pay it once, does it mean I have agreed to it and I have to pay this amount each time?

3- How do I go about the £40.00 which the Leasehold Tribunal has set precedent and as being a fair and reasonable amount?

Many thanks

You have to do in stages:
1. Apply to become a director - Not at the next AGM but now. The current directors normally can appoint directors until the next AGM when they are appointed by members..
2. Check out the resolutions of the directors and if they seem wrong " for the benefit of all members(i.e. not a minority) try and get the resolutions changed.
3. Get support from other members
4. In the future look to purchase the remaining freehold.
5. You may need advice from an independent adviser either solicitor or property manager.
6.There are all sorts of alternatives which could be followed