That's the spirit - 76 year old forced back to work

SirGalahad said:
Always follow the money. :mrgreen:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...tycoon-man-whose-firms-control-40000-uk-homes

Leasehold tycoon: man whose firms control 40,000 UK homes
As controversy grows over revelations that leaseholders are being trapped by spiralling ground rents, we look at the property empire of James Tuttiett

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018...yle-cladding-to-pay-for-fire-safety-measures/
A company run by a property tycoon who recently made a five figure donation to the Tories is forcing the residents of a block of flats with flammable cladding foot the bill for safety measures.
Click to expand...

The issue is not what they can legitimately charge, but their attempts to charge what they have no right to charge. I regularly do battle with a Freeholder agent - same address as the freeholder ;). who attempts to charge extra admin fees to collect on behalf of the freeholder. Thing is the Lease doesn't allow them to, but very few leaseholders read and understand the terms of the deed. £15 here and there on (in my case 600,000 leases) and there is more than a bit of bubbly for the share holders
 
Sponsored Links
motorbiking said:
The issue is not what they can legitimately charge, but their attempts to charge what they have no right to charge. I regularly do battle with a Freeholder agent - same address as the freeholder ;). who attempts to charge extra admin fees to collect on behalf of the freeholder. Thing is the Lease doesn't allow them to, but very few leaseholders read and understand the terms of the deed. £15 here and there on (in my case 600,000 leases) and there is more than a bit of bubbly for the share holders
Click to expand...

No right? Or what is reasonable? What are the main restrictions on limiting what the leaseholder can charge.

I have only bought properties that are freehold and never bought flats as I like to own the ground to the roof.
 
Dodgy freeholders like to use elements of the housing act to claim they can charge additional administration fees. The housing act rightly enables the freeholder to recover adhoc expenses incurred for example responding to transfers, mortgage lenders etc.. but it does not allow them to class sending out statements and request to pay building insurance. All leases differ, but the better ones lock in the fees for a set number of years and then allow increases for the next number of years. Building insurance is already a scam as they get kickbacks. The Freeholder, will usually outsource the statement, billing and collection process to an "agent" often a different department in the same company. This agent will attempt to apply its "administration fee" to the bill. But the lease if locked down will clearly state what fees are payable. Sub-letting fees is another scam - often they want another £120 each time you get a new tenant as they argue they are required to carry out checks. Again if the lease simply requires notice, then they can also do one.

Its really about how you word the objections.. I'm normally dealing with someone with an industry equivalent of A-level law, so I quote the solicitors code of conduct at them (its a breach of code to demand fees that have not been determined). This normally puts them back in the box. But many suckers pay up - £15, her £20 there £120 + vat over here. nice little earner and most people assume a fee demanded is lawful.

Surely a company wouldn't demand fees they have no right to charge? But they do.
 
motorbiking said:
Dodgy freeholders like to use elements of the housing act to claim they can charge additional administration fees. The housing act rightly enables the freeholder to recover adhoc expenses incurred for example responding to transfers, mortgage lenders etc.. but it does not allow them to class sending out statements and request to pay building insurance. All leases differ, but the better ones lock in the fees for a set number of years and then allow increases for the next number of years. Building insurance is already a scam as they get kickbacks. The Freeholder, will usually outsource the statement, billing and collection process to an "agent" often a different department in the same company. This agent will attempt to apply its "administration fee" to the bill. But the lease if locked down will clearly state what fees are payable. Sub-letting fees is another scam - often they want another £120 each time you get a new tenant as they argue they are required to carry out checks. Again if the lease simply requires notice, then they can also do one.

Its really about how you word the objections.. I'm normally dealing with someone with an industry equivalent of A-level law, so I quote the solicitors code of conduct at them (its a breach of code to demand fees that have not been determined). This normally puts them back in the box. But many suckers pay up - £15, her £20 there £120 + vat over here. nice little earner and most people assume a fee demanded is lawful.

Surely a company wouldn't demand fees they have no right to charge? But they do.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
Sponsored Links
Bodd said:
Would you pay BMW money for a Lada?
Click to expand...
Lol. Comparing a property purchase to that of a car?

You could have the worst constructed rabbit hutch, fetch triple that of a large quality home, built in a different location.

Stupid/pointless analogy of the month goes to bodd.(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top