|
|
 |
BWB Property Department Email Update
BWB Property Department, Bates Wells & Braithwaite, London EC4M 6YH, www.bateswells.co.uk
The BBC has set up an Action Network on
How to Challenge your Freeholder. The 1996 Housing Act gives leaseholders the right to take their landlords to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal if they are unhappy with the level of service. By 2007, the latest figures we have found so far, Britain had more than 22,000 Estates where the residents share the freehold. In 1981 and 1982 our Estate was amongst the first to buy the freehold. Campaigning and pressure to achieve this had started a few years earlier. By the end of 2006 only 5 Estates owned by the residents had appealed to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. As far as we can tell no other resident-owned Estate has taken a hearing out against the lessees. Past Decisions given at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (LVT). For those new to the search system there are at least 2 websites that list Past Judgements given at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals. Judgements can take some time to be scanned and listed. The websites we have used for our searches are:
The Leasehold Advisory Service where you enter the name of the property you are enquiring about in the Search slot on the opening page. By doing this you will find EVERY MENTION of the property listed on the website in reverse date order. This is probably the easier to use of the 2 "Search" options. It is also possible to "Search" by clicking onto the "LVT Decisions" found on the left hand side of the Home Page. Then type in the name of the property, and follow the instructions. The website of the Residential Property Tribunal Service also lists Past Decisions of the LVT. As with the The Leasehold Advisory Service you begin on the Home page by "Searching" using the name of the property. Again there is a second way to find what you are looking for. Click on "Decisions" in the top line of the Home Page, and then follow the instructions. Once again we would suggest that "Searching" from the Home Page is the easier method to follow. Our Estate, as far as we can tell, has the highest number of LVT appearances. This is not a record to be proud of, particularly when it is not difficult to stay within the law. Listed below are the Judgements of LVT hearings that involve our Company. Unfair Advantage ... against Residents? For all hearings involving our Estate a senior barrister represented the Estate. A senior partner from a major London law firm was also always present. Both were usually accompanied by juniors. And, ... all to quell amateurs! At the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearings our Estate secured the services of one of the highest paid barristers in London. Wouldn't staying within the law been considerably cheaper? Until 1995 the reputation of our Estate appeared untarnished! LVT Decision over External Decorating. It was this decision that led to the Directors taking the unusual step of refusing to re-pay the majority of shareholders. An EGM was organised in an attempt to avoid this legally-binding re-payment! That is why CROC went to the very top at the Department of Justice. We needed to find out if such evasion was legal. Our journey, with political help, will be reported as and when time allows. Distributing leaflets really is easier than website development, as well as being more personal!
.... update to be continued when time available ...
Dear LVT Tribunal
1.
In the legal bundle produced by XXXXX my mother, XXXXX was listed by XXXXXX as a respondent DESPITE THE FACT that she has been dead for 3 years and 2 months.
2.
At least one person, i.e. actually wrote in giving their detailed reasons for rejecting the call for dispensation . This letter was read out at the Tribunal. The owner of XXXXX House does not currently live on the Estate, and, to the best of my knowledge, I have never met them. They were double-listed as a respondent for the Estate.
3.
In his presentation to the Tribunal, xxxxx, counsel for XXXXXX repeatedly emphasized that 32 families had been left without hot water and heating during "this emergency". I have lived on XXXXX Estate for over 30 years. In the late 1970 the original hot water tanks in the older blocks of flats, and (XXXXXX, in which the apparent "emergency occurred" is classed as one of thesse, began to leak due to “wear and tear”. So, in the late 1970s these original hot water tanks were replaced, over a period of 2-3 years, by NEW water tanks that INCLUDED emersion heaters that could be used in case OF BOILER BREAKDOWN OR "in emergencies".
Mr. Geoff Tomlinson, known throughout the Estate as “The Hobbit”, was the heating engineer who installed these water tanks. He later went on to co-habit with a friend of mine in Surbiton. The Company he then worked for, regularly maintained the XXXXX's boilers, and our heating systems before the arrival XXXX, the present maintenance company on the Estate.
4.
As to my request to have the legal costs for the dispensation disallowed:
( The Tribunal asked me if I had any objections when this point of the procedure was reached, and my reply went along the lines set out below).
i.
XXXXXX regularly employs both a barrister and a senior solicitor to quell shareholder opposition. Earlier this year I saw 2 press profiles of the barrister who is regularly called upon by XXXXX Estate. These were written by different journalists. One article was in the London Evening Standard, and the other in the (free) London News. Both indicated that this barrister was one of the higher paid barristers within London.
I, personally, find it offensive that such “big guns” should be brought out to subdue shareholders of equal standing, and rather than keep wasting our communal monies I, personally, have tried to initiate arbitration between the Directors and the residents they are attempting to squash on 5 occasions.
ii.
In an LVT Judgement given in October this year XXXXXX v XXXXXX I note that the legal costs claimed for for one Tribunal hearing were £39,000. This amount was reduced, by order of the LVT Chairperson to £7,200.
iii
The shareholders of XXXX did not ask for this application for dispensation to be brought. Nor, as of noon on the 3rd December have we been informed of the true costs of the work carried out, or that the dispensation hearing even took place! Those who wrote in, when the Management sent out a form to canvass approval or otherwise, were asked a specific question based on the estimate that the “emergency” work on the boilers would cost around £42,000. No-one from "Management" has ever revealed to the residents that the true figure of was £69,300.00!!
This non-disclossure remains true as of 14th February, 2008.
I do hope that these points and observations arrive (at the Tribunal) in time, and that they prove useful.
Yours truly
The above letter as faxed and posted to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal(LVT) Tribunal Hearing.
As our access around our Estate has been restricted, this letter has been published here for the information of residents who read our website. When you do see it please spread the word, and tell your neighbours that the hearing has occurred, and also the true cost of the "emergency works".
We will link the Judgement from this site as soon as it is available. Then you will be able to read it for yourself and won't need to rely on intermediaries!
***************************************************************************
We should all Beware Confusing Reporting. In the Winter 2007 Newsletter distributed by our Board of Directors great emphasis was placed on the "lost cases" taken by a resident/lessee.
Here is a word for word transcript of a Statement, written by our Manager on 12th February, 2008. This statement was taken to Wandsworth County Court, and is reprinted here with the specific permission of the Defendant involved in that case.
"The Defendant's Allocation Questionnaire makes reference to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) hearing. There was a preliminary hearing on 17th September 2007 and a final hearing on 27th November
(Yes, this was a seperate case to the one on 30th November which the Directors applied for THEMSELVES! )
which did not directly involve the Defendant
(of the County Court Case )
and was brought by another lessee of the Claimant Company under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 (sic) section 27A and 20C. These decisions will be produced at the hearing."
... The statement then continues, new paragraph ...
"To the extent material to this claim both decisions were in favour of the Claimant
(i.e. the claimant is this particular instance is the Claimant/Lessee referred to in the Winter 2007 Newsletter!)
and no money is or was due back to the Defendant of other lessees."
The Statement to the Court then moves onto point 4. ...
****************************************************************************
AGM 2007: Well in advance CROC wrote officially to offer to pay for the neutral @27 to count the votes and the proxies. No strings whatsoever were attached. This would have saved fellow residents, money! In the accounting years 2005, during which @25 spearheaded the @26 coup, and 2006 when @25 announced he was saving us money by doing the accounts "in-house", the accountants fees trebled! During 2005/2006 we also employed, "in-house", until she left in October 2006, a full time book-keeper, who had previoulsy worked with @25. During this period the pension fund contributions paid by @26 increased dramatically. Our experience has shown, even at the tripled rate, auditors are not adverse "to errors"! In the same document, submitted to the AGM and to Companies House, the auditors certified AS CORRECT 3 different totals for the number of shares in circulation within our company! This might sound a small discrepancy, but, if YOU are the person whose @08 YOU could be "down" many thousands of pounds!
Information which might prove useful to other "Concerned Residents" and/or more general campaigners.
The @29: We do know that the government plan to run down, and then to close the @29. However, they do have a stand at the (June) 2007 Annual Conference of the @28. Anyone who comes across evidence of another "creaming off" or "hiding assets" should contact the @29 for free, confidential advice. Searching for Companies registered in Channel Islands. There is currently no way of searching for individual director names, but this is in preparation. Trade Names: There is no Register of Trade Names in Guernsey and Alderney, but there is one in Jersey. To look for a company registered in Alderney contact the Company Registry, The Clerk of the Court, States Office, New Street, Alderney. tel: 01481 822817 To look for a company registered in Guernsey contact: Her Majesty's Greffier, The Company Registry, The Greffe, Royal Court House, Guernsey, GY1 2PB. They hold information on Registrations of Limited Liabilty Companies and Limited Partnerships. As yet there is no Register of Individual Directors. They accept telephone enquiries: 01481 725277: fax 01481 715097. To look for a company @21 contact The Director of Companies Registry, The Financial Services Commission, PO Box 267, Nelson Street, David Place, St Helier, JE4 8TP. tel: 01534 822030: fax 01534 822003. All records of registrations are available on computer which can be accessed by the public. The cost of a search is £10 plus 25p for each page printed out. Cheques to Jersey Financial Services Commission or by credit card. Anyone with a complaint against a company which is @21 should click through to this site, then click on 'About Us' where there is a mechanism to register your complaint. @13 and @14 The Annexe, St. Paul's Community Centre, New Street, St. Helier, Jersey, JE2 3WP, The Channel Islands. Local freephone 0800 7350249: otherwise 01534 724942 or fax: 01534 617508. We found the volunteers at the @14 helpful. Companies with a legal status must be registered. Here are sources of UK company information. @12 within the UK has been streamlined. Sadly, the overstretched staff are now, inevitably, often less helpful. General UK company information and advice: The Companies House Contact Centre: 0870 33 33 636. Lines open 08:30 - 18:00 UK time: Monday to Friday, NOT national holidays. Minicom - 02920 381245
email: @24; and feedback c/o Mr Ian Smith, The Customer Services Manager, ismith@companieshouse.gov.uk The London walk-in Centre for Companies House is at 21, Bloomsbury Street, London WC1B 3XD, about 1 minute walk from the British Museum. There are excellent, free toilet facilities!! Staff are quite helpful. The computer terminal nearest to the counter is a specialist one with more facilities. These include searching by postcode, and the details of many EU-based companies are now coming on-line. All terminals are free to use, and basic information is free too. Other prices range up to around £5.00. The usual searches are carried out by Company name; Company number; or Company Director or Secretary surname. If using surnames we suggest you also cross-reference the details of any spouse (if known), and possibly anyone else registered as living at the same address. You can search for these by using the specialist terminal at Companies House for searching by postcodes, or by using the Electoral Role. That is held at the local Reference Library. Company Directors must submit details of their other UK directorships. Details of the mortgages held by any privately owned (like ours) company are listed, as are the details of the shareholders. This does not apply to publicly listed companies (plcs). All UK registered companies must file their accounts. The public can print off items at a reasonable cost.
Northern Ireland: Web-filing and company information now goes through the UK @12 site. The local Customer Counter is on 1st Floor, Waterfront Plaza, 8, Laganbank Road, Belfast, BT1 3BS and personal callers can visit between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm Monday to Friday. 0845 604 88 88 / fax: 028 9090 5291. Scotland: Companies registered in Scotland are now also found through the main @12 site. Companies House in Scotland is at 37 Castle Terrace, Edinburgh, EH1 2EB. DX ED235 Edinburgh 1. Some worrying changes to the Planning Decision Process.
Bullies in the Treasury perhaps? February 2007:
Someone in the British Treasury has decided that the UK planning system is a barrier to business! Those "at the Treasury" want to remove what THEY SEE as obstacles. These include YOU; your community; and community-based pressure groups! The current town-and- country planning system plays a crucial role in protecting both our environment and our communities. CROC members are amongst those who believe that The Leasehold Advisory Service not only improves the quality of the decisions made, but is the key to successful developments. To safeguard all our rights, and to protect our environment, such retrograde thinking should, perhaps, be challenged at the earliest possible stage?
Companies House in @22: Companies registered in @22 are (as one would expect!) not easy to track! Most of the information held on companies registered in @22 is only available on subscription. There does appear to be a facility for subscribers to ask questions! (and to get answers, perhaps!!?).
Tracking a Company. Looking for a company registered in the Isle of Man is more difficult than searching for one registered in the Channel Islands. You could use a company search agent: they are listed on the internet, or in the Isle of Man phone book. Even if you do the search yourself it will still be expensive. The General Companies Registry (OIK-Recortyssee) is at Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SB. tel: 01624 6895233; fax: 01624 685236. Postal enquiries should be sent to the Deputy Assistant Registrar in the Companies Registry. The information held at the Company Registry is the registered office; the names and addresses of the Company Secretary and the Directors; the share capital and whether there are any shareholders (without specific details); any change of company name and any special resolutions passed. The accounts and other financial details such as mortgages held etc. are currently not available to view. There is a quite a hefty initial payment of around £25 and then a charge of around 25p a page for photocopying. @10 established 2006; @11 @16 established 1971; @17 etc. Google also lists Land Tribunal websites for countries that had previously been administered by the UK.
The Data Protection Registrar (www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk) enforces the @14 The @14 specifically states that if security cameras are to be set up WITHIN (i.e. inside) a residential building ALL of the residents must agree to this, and a notice must be displayed outside the front door so that anyone visiting realises they might be watched! These restrictions do NOT apply to street cameras or to many public buildings. @35 had been determined to install security cameras inside each front door on our Estate. Leaseholder Management: Law and Practice in the Management of Social Housing (Arden's Housing Library)
|
