-
Right. It's difficult to compare like for like because all are addressing a different set of circumstances but I can dig the most recent statement out.
Ultimately the lease defines what you can be charged for so the freeholder will be operating within the boundaries that the leaseholder has agreed. I would have thought.
Howard-
Ultimately the lease defines what you can be charged for so the freeholder will be operating within the boundaries that the leaseholder has agreed. I would have thought.
I think that's the case 90% of the time, but in one particular case they're not. There's two things:
a) Residents paid for our communal gardens to be turned into a car park, which our freeholder immediately began charging us for, and clamping / issuing tickets to residents, which an LVT found unreasonable but they're still doing it.
b) Managing agents have been putting half our Service Charge into the Reserve Fund which is fine but this year they've also overspent on the Service Charge so we've all got a £400 bill in addition to the very high service charge.
Anyway, the combo of these two things have soured relationships between residents and managing agents and it's leading to residents saying things like our service charge is 'criminal'. Which it isn't, it's just a bit of a shit deal that our managing agents don't care about because they're not having to pay for it. I'm just trying to find a way forward and proving (or disproving) that the actual charges are similar would be a good start.
ReekBlefs
Yeah that's the thing - it's a reserve fund fest, about half the money is going in. And personally I don't have a problem with that - better that then get a £8k bill at random -
but the guys in our block are really pissed off about it and they're shouting about it being criminal etc. I'd love to get some evidence to compare.
Not sure if you'd be up for sharing your service charge statement of accounts but if you were I'd really appreciate it. At least it might calm them down.