Whereas your editorial on leasehold reform (29 January) is true to say that motion on floor rents is lengthy overdue, as is the abolition of leasehold altogether, and that the suitable to handle is a key a part of leaseholders taking management of their buildings, it misses a key level: the legislation round service costs is archaic and deeply unfair.
Because it at present stands, except they handle their buildings themselves, leaseholders have little or no management over what service costs are issued, and whereas the legislation says they’re entitled to see the accounts, managing brokers incessantly both fail to provide them or achieve this in a type that doesn’t, fairly actually, add up. Forensic accountants would have a discipline day. And legally, leaseholders are obliged to pay these costs after which problem them, often on the first-tier tribunal, the place the precedent is that as lengthy as the costs are mandatory, ie the work is critical, and affordable, ie the associated fee is cheap, they should be paid. The explanation for the cost arising in the primary place is irrelevant.
Support Greater and Subscribe to view content
This is premium stuff. Subscribe to read the entire article.
