Tweet
Hello,
I'm a state pensioner aged 67, and the leaseholder of my property, which is a mid-terraced house on top of a row of shops. The previous owners bought the whole block from the local authority about 35 years ago; all leaseholders own their own share of the freehold through a limited company established at the time of the outright purchase of the block. So every owner is both the leaseholder and the freeholder of their own property. (These details may or may not be relevant.)
Three years ago my managing agents told me to repair my patio because of a water leak to the shop premises below.
I had visits from local contractors and I wanted to accept one of their bids.
I was then told that if I got the work done by the managing agent's own people then I would be allowed to pay this off at £250 a month.
So I agreed, as I could not afford to pay for the alternative. The agent's own people charged £4,500 (whereas I was on the point of accepting a local contractor’s bid of about £1,800). But I could not afford to pay this all at once, so I was forced to use the agents’ own people at over twice the cost, to make use of their £250/month offer of payment terms.
I took on some freelance part-time work, and the full amount was duly paid off in the agreed 18 months.
Then, in the same week that I paid this off, the managing agents contacted me again and told me that there was another leak, and that I had to pay again to get it repaired. They insisted that this was a “new leak” (although how they determined this is a mystery – it was simply a proclamation they made announcing it was “new”).
But this time they recommended a completely different method for repairing the leak.
So why should I believe that the first "repair" actually worked? Especially if the diagnosis is so different this time. Logic suggests that the original diagnosis was incorrect because it failed.
To add insult to injury (presumably in an attempt to justify their “new leak” assertion) the agents insisted that this "new" leak came about through my negligence because I failed to maintain my patio, which is nonsense.
They said they found evidence of weeds growing. But weeds only grow where water is able to ingress, which suggests that the first repair failed to repair the leak as water was continuing to ingress.
The agents also made the absurd suggestion that my “window box” also has something to do with the leak! Yet this is not attached to the structure or fabric of the patio in any way. Rainfall into it cannot possibly go into the area below; it is entirely self-contained. So they are presumably saying this so that it makes their accusation of poor maintenance more believable.
I wish to contest this. Why should I pay something twice if they failed to repair it the first time? Especially since I was made to.pay about twice as much as I was originally bid by local contractors!
But where do I stand as far as the law is concerned?
I would welcome any advice from members of this forum.
Many thanks.
I'm a state pensioner aged 67, and the leaseholder of my property, which is a mid-terraced house on top of a row of shops. The previous owners bought the whole block from the local authority about 35 years ago; all leaseholders own their own share of the freehold through a limited company established at the time of the outright purchase of the block. So every owner is both the leaseholder and the freeholder of their own property. (These details may or may not be relevant.)
Three years ago my managing agents told me to repair my patio because of a water leak to the shop premises below.
I had visits from local contractors and I wanted to accept one of their bids.
I was then told that if I got the work done by the managing agent's own people then I would be allowed to pay this off at £250 a month.
So I agreed, as I could not afford to pay for the alternative. The agent's own people charged £4,500 (whereas I was on the point of accepting a local contractor’s bid of about £1,800). But I could not afford to pay this all at once, so I was forced to use the agents’ own people at over twice the cost, to make use of their £250/month offer of payment terms.
I took on some freelance part-time work, and the full amount was duly paid off in the agreed 18 months.
Then, in the same week that I paid this off, the managing agents contacted me again and told me that there was another leak, and that I had to pay again to get it repaired. They insisted that this was a “new leak” (although how they determined this is a mystery – it was simply a proclamation they made announcing it was “new”).
But this time they recommended a completely different method for repairing the leak.
So why should I believe that the first "repair" actually worked? Especially if the diagnosis is so different this time. Logic suggests that the original diagnosis was incorrect because it failed.
To add insult to injury (presumably in an attempt to justify their “new leak” assertion) the agents insisted that this "new" leak came about through my negligence because I failed to maintain my patio, which is nonsense.
They said they found evidence of weeds growing. But weeds only grow where water is able to ingress, which suggests that the first repair failed to repair the leak as water was continuing to ingress.
The agents also made the absurd suggestion that my “window box” also has something to do with the leak! Yet this is not attached to the structure or fabric of the patio in any way. Rainfall into it cannot possibly go into the area below; it is entirely self-contained. So they are presumably saying this so that it makes their accusation of poor maintenance more believable.
I wish to contest this. Why should I pay something twice if they failed to repair it the first time? Especially since I was made to.pay about twice as much as I was originally bid by local contractors!
But where do I stand as far as the law is concerned?
I would welcome any advice from members of this forum.
Many thanks.
Comment