Can I complete a N150 as a defendant to get the case referred to the LVT?

[indiajack]

The summary is that the landlord failed to establish a sinking fund to collect money to set against major works. A large lump sum payment was demanded creating a huge burden and was based on estimates without surveyor inspection based on what the surveyor thought would e required for a set of properties on the landlord's books without consideration that the new freehold bought (where I am a lessee) already had major works done in 2000/2001. The other adjacent properties had not had this kind of work done. This new freehold where the contention is was bought in 2004. There is legal ambiquity whether the contents in the lease agreement support the setting of a sinking fund in a manner that sums be collected early for a target amount towards major works at a future date. The Leasehold Advisory Service pamphlet appears to suggest that a sinking fund of this manner shoudl operate with regard to inent of this type of clause.

 

The landlord's solictors had acknowledged that sums were demanded in contravention of the lease terms but then redirected through the service charge estimates received on March 2012 for 2012, 50% in retrospect from 25th Dec 2011 to 24 June 2012, and then the next from 25 June 2012 to 24 December 2012. In initially I had asked to pay in monthly instalments for the estimated amount demanded over a period that would at least somewhat reflect the time the sinking fund should have been built. But this was refused.

 

The works were completed by the first week of September 2012 and actual cost invoices should have been received. A Part 18 request for such invoices and actual costs have been side-stepped by the claimant in reply, who resent the estimates and the composition of the estimates only. A response stating that the Part 18 request has not been met has been sent to the claimant.

 

A defence has been filed within the time limit and a N152 and N150) just received. I would appreciate advice on how to fill the N150 to get the matter heard by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, especially as I would like to bring up further issues such as excessively high insurance premiums (approximately £2,000 per annum) being charged and subsequent large service charge demands met for the internal refurbishment of carpets, which in the view of the 6 lessees of the property is not required as the carpet is in good order and a high charge for electrical rewiring, when the common parts only have two light bulbs.

[ims21]

Thread moved to the legal forum where the guys will be happy to help as soon as they are available.

[andydd]

Hi there. You can suggest that the case be transfered to an LVT in the Allocation Questionaire (N150). Although it can be transfered at an any stage really. Most CC Judges are wise enough to recognise when something is the juridstiction of an LVT although some seem a bit unaware of it or try and keep it in the CC when its not really suitable.

 

If it isnt transfered as a result of the AQ dont be shying about bringinmg it up,either in a letter to the Judge/Court or in person at a hearing.

 

You could bring up the other factors such as insurance in your defence as a counterclaim or offset, for example you could say youve paid £2000 insurance for 10 years and you believe it should be half that (therefore if an LVT agree they would owe you/offset £10,000).

 

I'd keep the defence to CC simple, and then elaborate if/when it goes to an LVT.

 

Don't forget you can question service charges going back 12 years, so you may have a lot to dispute.

 

I'm in similar boat, been to LVT's and CC's and have been quite succesfully in having my FH's claims thrown out or reduced and have been refunded lots.

 

I'm the resident 'leasehold expert' here, Ill move this to the Residential Property forum which is more suitable.

 

Andy

[ims21]

 

I'm the resident 'leasehold expert' here, Ill move this to the Residential Property forum which is more suitable.

 

Andy

 

 

Thanks Andy....wasn't sure of the best place

[indiajack]

Thank you, Andy

 

This has answered my question and assisted me greatly

 

Kumar

 

 

Hi there. You can suggest that the case be transfered to an LVT in the Allocation Questionaire (N150). Although it can be transfered at an any stage really. Most CC Judges are wise enough to recognise when something is the juridstiction of an LVT although some seem a bit unaware of it or try and keep it in the CC when its not really suitable.

 

If it isnt transfered as a result of the AQ dont be shying about bringinmg it up,either in a letter to the Judge/Court or in person at a hearing.

 

You could bring up the other factors such as insurance in your defence as a counterclaim or offset, for example you could say youve paid £2000 insurance for 10 years and you believe it should be half that (therefore if an LVT agree they would owe you/offset £10,000).

 

I'd keep the defence to CC simple, and then elaborate if/when it goes to an LVT.

 

Don't forget you can question service charges going back 12 years, so you may have a lot to dispute.

 

I'm in similar boat, been to LVT's and CC's and have been quite succesfully in having my FH's claims thrown out or reduced and have been refunded lots.

 

I'm the resident 'leasehold expert' here, Ill move this to the Residential Property forum which is more suitable.

 

Andy

[andydd]

As a general rule, CC can judicate on leasehold issues on clear black and white issues, (i.e is it payable or not), LVT's can judicate on issues of reasonableness (i.e the servce charge is payable but is £2k insurance too high, etc).

 

Generally though a claim starts in CC goes to LVT and returns to CC to clean up and deal with costs, etc..

 

But you can start in LVT, I did mine in reverse and went to CC second when the FH didnt pay up.

 

Andy

[indiajack]

Thanks.

 

In this case, the FH maintains that the sinking fund clause means that the lump sum demand is the sinking fund. However, the inetnt and the guidance from the Leasehold Advisory Service is that this sinking/reserve fund is for the accummulation of monies to ease the large one of demand burden and also to be fair to those who buy the leased property in between major works and are not burdened for the period thatb they were not residents. I think this may not be considered by the CC but would be by the LVT.

 

The FH collected ad-hoc small amounts and the sinking fund account had about £3,100 in it when the FH purchased the freehold from the previous owner. None of theses sums have been set against the estimates demanded.

 

The FH also seem reluctant to dislcose the actual costs of the works and thus far we have not been asked fo additional contributions. the works were completed about 4 months ago and one would have thought the actuals would have been received, not to mention payment on surveyor's certifcation of works completed. I am beginning to speculate that the actual costs incurred very significantly lower than the amount demanded on estimate.

 

I had continued paying normal service charge demands (properly designated and referenced by telephone banking)but these payments from me had been offset against the disputed amount and arrears adminsitration charges have been levied on the basis that I did not pay the service charge. i am unsure that the CC would view this is the light of the substance that it is and only consider the letter of the law.

 

Then there is the insurance - thank you for your advice on this. i had not considered offsetting with this.

[andydd]

In my experience I actually try to keep some elements in the CC, I was not very happy with my LVT, it went mostly in my favour but they are not judges and are well known for making bizarre, inconsistent and contradictory decisons, so be careful. In all of mine since, Ive won in CC, normally coz their case is struck out, I even used the very useful Summary Judgment process

 

You can read LVT decisions online and you may be able to work out who will be your local tribunal head, mine is Bruce Eddington who does the south east Essex area, and I find it useful to read local decisions and get in his mind so to speak, he has really come down hard on FH's who charge excessive amounts for insurance so im very confident he will do the same with mine, when/if it gets to an LVT !

 

Andy

[indiajack]

There is one question I have failed to ask,

 

What track do i choose? The current amount the claimant has posted is £8,400, including court and solicitors fees.

 

I am unsure whether it should be the fast track or multi-track option that has to be ticked

 

many thanks

 

Kumar

[andydd]

Would appear to be fast track (although small claim limit is £10,000 come April), you should be aware of the costs risks that fast/multi track could incur, although hopefully the majority of the 'work' would be on the no costs LVT.

 

Make sure you put in a S20C application to LVT/Court, this stops the FH recouping legal costs via the service charge (if the Lease allows).

 

Andy

[indiajack]

Thank you,

 

I am sorry to bother you wwith another question - When and how can I make the 20C application?

 

I am very grateful for your help.

[andydd]

Heres a guide > http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/residential-property/leasehold-valuation-tribunals.pdf

 

and another > http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/t542-eng.pdf

 

Generally there are three tpes of dispute and three seperate forms:-

 

1. Service Charges disputes

 

2. Admin Charges disputes

 

3. S20C Application.

 

There are hundreds more involving property but those are the ones you are likely to use.

 

The RPTS site is here with lots of info. > http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/residential-property

 

and Lease Advisory Service is very good > http://www.lease-advice.org/

 

I did my application straight to LVT, (I got forms from RPTS), when its transfered from Court it may be different and maybe easier.

 

I'm not sure whether an S20C application can be done in court, they are common at LVT's, youll often see them discussed in last paragraph of decisions, they are needed because whereas in courts, generally the loser pays costs, some/many leases say the leaseholder must pay legal costs..this applies if they win or lose !, clearly unfair, so S20C was introduced to 'overide' this, although not always granted...but check your lease for mention of legal fees/costs

 

Andy

[indiajack]

Thank you Andy

 

Kumar