Does anyone have any legal knowledge of shared freehold properties

[BG0612]

I am a 1977 Rent Act tenant living in a flat that forms part of a large six flat property. (My tenancy is not in dispute, so I don't need answers from  you that query that status and interrupt the nub of this thread topic.

All are leasehold owned (two tenanted, the others owner occupied residents) all with shared Freehold. Collectively the owners run a shared freehold management company - to tend to the common parts and pay for building insurances etc. The owners each hold a single share. This is not illegal, apparently. It often works well - to share the freehold. 

This arrangement worked ok for the most part, until lately.

Based on two recent decisions, it has become apparent to me that decisions to manage the common parts of the land the house sits on are being collectively decided upon to directly benefit the residential owners, but at the expense of myself - a tenant. They have decided to put wheelie bins in direct view of my window; they are now planning to cut away a tree that I benefit from aesthetically and stops heat coming through my window during the summer. This has caused enormous conflict between myself and the other residents and conflict between myself and my landlord who is a shareholder in this freeholder management company. 

I have now read through this Freehold Management Company Articles of Association and read the Terms of Engagement and Decision making. Decisions are made by majority decision. There is no mention in the clauses that freeholder members who rent their property out having a first duty of care to their own tenants, according to law, to ensure that they abide by their landlord obligations to repair and maintain the property they directly own and, in this case, the the external parts of the dwelling and to ensure they don't interfere with the tenant's right to Quiet and Peaceful Enjoyment of their Property. Or, more simply, where a conflict of interest arises or may arise, they must put the interests of their tenant before the interests of the management committee members for which the tenant plays no decision making role. The landlord, for the sake of voting must not forfeit their tenants rights or reduce them. 

The silence on this stipulation is causing huge problems.

My own landlord has been asked to vote on matters lately that he has agreed to (to ensure majority vote to push through a decision) which work directly against my interests in favour of other residential owners. He is acting in their best interests, not mine. 

The ramifications of his membership of this freeholder body is obvious. That means, in practice, that if my flat needs some exterior work done (a new window or something else is bothering me that infringes upon my tenant rights) then the rest of the management committee has to agree to the work to pay for it. Given that the other residents are unlikely to agree let alone pay for anything that is unlikely to benefit them directly and only vote and agree a majority for work and alterations likely to benefit them directly, even if it is at my expense in terms of enjoyment or comfort, that puts me at a distinct disadvantage not to mention signalling that my landlord - as a shareholder - has a direct conflict of interest when his first duty is to his fellow shareholders and, as absentee landlords are likely to agree on matters put before them that might directly impinge on the peace and quiet  enjoyment of my property or at least cause me some distress or annoyance. If my landlord was directly impacted by these decisions he might not have agreed but because they don't even live here they rubber stamp all decisions put before them without giving a thought to how this impacts me.

To put it most succinctly, it seems that I have six landlords not one, each one a freeholder of the flats that form part of the large house containing individual flats.

Isn't this harassment by default - for my landlord to become a shareholder of a freeholder shared management company whose member residential occupants needs' are being prioritised before their own tenants rights and needs to ensure a majority vote to push through work done to the house or other changes? A conflict of interest is bound to occur. Here are two examples of how they could. They are just examples, not real problems I am facing:

Scenario 1:  My exterior paintwork or windows need replacing which is the landlord's responsibility.  I tell my landlord so he can carry out the work. My landlord doesn't just get on with it and pay for it himself, he must take the matter to the Freeholder Management Company and puts it to the vote. Most refuse - it's not their problem, so my landlord is then not able to carry out the work even though he would otherwise would if he were not part of this management company. 

Scenario 2: My exterior paintwork or windows need replacing which is the landlord's responsibility.  I tell my landlord so he can carry out the work. My landlord takes the matter to the Freeholder Management Company and votes No to the work due to the expense, even if it is shared expense rather than solely theirs. The rest also vote No too, or most do and my landlord then doesn't carry out work because the majority disagreed that it should be carried out. This is in keeping with the Articles of Association rules but negates their landlord obligations to me to repair the flat exterior (or other freeholder tasks).

I am thinking of taking legal advice to see what my options are. I think I have a clear case of harassment by default of my landlord being a shareholder of a shared freeholder management company comprising other resident occupants at the house we all live in, when they are clearly abdicating responsibility to me, as their tenant, in favour of majority decisions being made by other Directors. Can i insist that they dissolve this set up or start a management cooperative instead which includes all residents at the house, including myself who pays rent to contribute toward the house upkeep? Or, if not, get the Director's to change the provisions to include me as a sitting tenant who is resident at the house impacted by these decisions and whose flat is legally every bit as much their home as their own properties are?

It;s also worth noting that the Articles contain a provision that states very clearly what the purpose of the Company is. It doesn't say anything about making changes based on preference or priority, only that it is about improving, maintaining and fixing etc. it seems that the resident owner occupiers are using this company as a stick to beat me with to get changes made that go against my interest even when it has nothing to do with the Company's stated aims. Putting wheelie bins in direct view of my window is not fixing, improving or maintaining. It is just bullying.

Doesn't my landlord have a lawful duty to ensure that any vote he makes does not override his obligations to me, just as they would if he was not a shareholder of this freeholder shared management company or the house was managed by one separate freeholder?  

What are your thoughts. Has anyone got a view on this? Thanks.

[Richlist]

I'll give you my opinion.

Your landlord, the leaseholder will normally be keen to maintain the property in order to uphold its value. If the external parts are not maintained the block will look poor, it's value will be affected and its ability to attract tenants will also be negatively impacted......it will also impact other flats in The block. The same can be said for changes e.g. relocation of wheelie bins. Having them parked outside the window of the flat will affect resale and rentability.

All leases are different and without seeing details of yours we have no way of knowing if the leaseholders & freeholders are not complying with obligations.

Normally your only course of action if you don't like the lack of maintenance &/or changes proposed is to move.

In your shoes I'd be more inclined to explain to the landlord why you want to move, making sure you emphasise the reasons will also affect the value of his property, rent levels and his ability to attract tenants.

[Grampa]

I think you are over thinking this with a limited knowledge.

Generally speaking the freeholders working collectively as a group will be limited to what they can do from what is stated in the individual leases and statute law.

Your landlord who is also a part owner of the freehold has 2 hats to wear. One as a landlord to you and all the obligations that go with that which should be explained in your tenancy agreement which covers your demised area and any rights of access. Read your tenancy carefully to check your landlord is complying with his obligations.

Regarding Scenario 1 & 2 they haven't happened yet so it is not relevant at this stage. If there was a problem with the windows that caused a security issue your landlord has a legal responsibility to fix/resolve asap regardless of the freehold. If he didnt you would be within your rights to write to him informing him you would be instructing your own contractors to do a temporarily repair on xx/xx/xx date unless it is done and you will deduct the cost from your rent payments.

Anything cosmetic such as decoration generally isn't covered as legal obligation of a landlord to his tenant. 

 

 

 

 

[BG0612]

16 hours ago, Richlist said:

I'll give you my opinion.

Your landlord, the leaseholder will normally be keen to maintain the property in order to uphold its value. If the external parts are not maintained the block will look poor, it's value will be affected and its ability to attract tenants will also be negatively impacted......it will also impact other flats in The block. The same can be said for changes e.g. relocation of wheelie bins. Having them parked outside the window of the flat will affect resale and rentability.

All leases are different and without seeing details of yours we have no way of knowing if the leaseholders & freeholders are not complying with obligations.

Normally your only course of action if you don't like the lack of maintenance &/or changes proposed is to move.

In your shoes I'd be more inclined to explain to the landlord why you want to move, making sure you emphasise the reasons will also affect the value of his property, rent levels and his ability to attract tenants.

Thanks for your response.

Moving is not an option. As a 1977 Rent Act sitting tenant, living in London, I would not be able to rent another property with the same tenancy and my rent would quadruple overnight. That is definitely not going to happen.

 

 

[BG0612]

16 hours ago, Richlist said:

I'll give you my opinion.

Your landlord, the leaseholder will normally be keen to maintain the property in order to uphold its value. If the external parts are not maintained the block will look poor, it's value will be affected and its ability to attract tenants will also be negatively impacted......it will also impact other flats in The block. The same can be said for changes e.g. relocation of wheelie bins. Having them parked outside the window of the flat will affect resale and rentability.

All leases are different and without seeing details of yours we have no way of knowing if the leaseholders & freeholders are not complying with obligations.

Normally your only course of action if you don't like the lack of maintenance &/or changes proposed is to move.

In your shoes I'd be more inclined to explain to the landlord why you want to move, making sure you emphasise the reasons will also affect the value of his property, rent levels and his ability to attract tenants.

Thanks for your response. I think you are missing my point here.

The landlord bought a sitting tenanted flat to ensure ongoing rent, albeit it as a reduced Rent Controlled rate. He has shown very little interest in the property and as I have no plans to move he has little incentive to vote in my interests, as opposed to the interests of other residential occupier owners. That is the problem.  So why would he be concerned about attracting other tenants. He has me.

[BG0612]

12 hours ago, Grampa said:

I think you are over thinking this with a limited knowledge.

Generally speaking the freeholders working collectively as a group will be limited to what they can do from what is stated in the individual leases and statute law.

Your landlord who is also a part owner of the freehold has 2 hats to wear. One as a landlord to you and all the obligations that go with that which should be explained in your tenancy agreement which covers your demised area and any rights of access. Read your tenancy carefully to check your landlord is complying with his obligations.

Regarding Scenario 1 & 2 they haven't happened yet so it is not relevant at this stage. If there was a problem with the windows that caused a security issue your landlord has a legal responsibility to fix/resolve asap regardless of the freehold. If he didnt you would be within your rights to write to him informing him you would be instructing your own contractors to do a temporarily repair on xx/xx/xx date unless it is done and you will deduct the cost from your rent payments.

Anything cosmetic such as decoration generally isn't covered as legal obligation of a landlord to his tenant. 

 

 

 

 

It's the two hat role thats creating the problem. As a leaseholder he can decide for himself to pay for works to the internal parts of my flat he is responsible for. But for the communal parts, his decision making powers are not his to make alone or to filter through to one freeholder who has an interest in the entire property and everyone in it collectively. The problem is that other owner occupiers he votes with on freeholder matters, via this shared freeholder company, can now technically hold him to ransom to refuse to vote with him on works he wants to do that don't affect them but they must share payment for, or dilute his obligations to me to carry out other 'freeholder' responsibility essential maintenance tasks to my flat that, if not done properly, could impinge on his legal obligation to uphold the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of my flat.

There is a direct conflict of interest.  He may actually want to carry out works to my flat but now he must put it to a vote and others must agree to share in the cost. That is the issue. 

[Richlist]

......and therein lies your problem. You have no say in the matter because you have no equitable interest.

Provided your landlord and the freeholder (irrespective of whether they are the same) comply with their restrictions, stipulations and obligations they are not obliged to carry out any request made by the tenant.

If you believe they are not carrying out their responsibilities and after discussion they will not rectify the matter, then you would need to take legal advice/ action.

[Grampa]

9 hours ago, BG0612 said:

It's the two hat role thats creating the problem. As a leaseholder he can decide for himself to pay for works to the internal parts of my flat he is responsible for. But for the communal parts, his decision making powers are not his to make alone or to filter through to one freeholder who has an interest in the entire property and everyone in it collectively. The problem is that other owner occupiers he votes with on freeholder matters, via this shared freeholder company, can now technically hold him to ransom to refuse to vote with him on works he wants to do that don't affect them but they must share payment for, or dilute his obligations to me to carry out other 'freeholder' responsibility essential maintenance tasks to my flat that, if not done properly, could impinge on his legal obligation to uphold the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of my flat.

There is a direct conflict of interest.  He may actually want to carry out works to my flat but now he must put it to a vote and others must agree to share in the cost. That is the issue. 

But your argument is, what if this, what if that, he may want to do this , he may want to do that. A lot of what ifs and may want to's.

Well as these issues havent happened yet you dont know if i will be a issue. Therefore I go back to my  earlier point that you are overthinking it at this stage.

It is in the benefit  and interest of a freehold company to maintain the fabric of the building  and fulfill their legal obligations . In my experience freeholders are sensible and pragmatic  in looking after their financial interests.  

If he doesn't  fulfill his landlord legal obligations speak to environment health and the housing dept at your local council but they wont want to spend any time on a lot of what if scenarios.