-
I think you can instantiate S146 proceedings against a co-freeholder if they're not maintaining their end of the bargain
Looked at this recently. You can't. Not least because section 146 notices only apply where there's a proviso for re-entry, and that only applies to their obligations as a tenant, not their obligations as co-landlord.
Edited to add: I'm involved in a similar case to grams' at the moment. The only way out of the impasse seems to me to apply under the 1987 Act for the appointment of a manager. Which is a whole world of pain.
Brommers-
That's awful - so co-freeholders are effectively stuck if they're stuck with an absent co-freeholder. That's infuriating. It'll be interesting to see if the proposed reforms will provide a way out for that situation.
A block I'm working with at the moment is unable to pursue RTM because they've got 25% commercial, and we looked into appointing a manager. As you say, world of pain. We've decided to wait until (if) the reforms come in.
ReekBlefs
I do hear you, and it's clearly coming for a place of frustration, so I'm not going to respond with anything to make that worse.
I'm not sure if you've investigated it but I think you can instantiate S146 proceedings against a co-freeholder if they're not maintaining their end of the bargain, especially if ground rent is not being paid (assuming you have that), though I am not a lawyer.