LPE1 - Section 20 - Anticipated works

[Lorney]

Good afternoon,
Please may I ask for your views on the following -

Background
- Bought a leasehold flat in (2021).
- Everything was done by post due to Covid.
- No meeting physically or by telephone.
- Within the first 6 months of ownership a Section 20 was issued.
- Solicitor did not advise me of the Section 20 which was detailed on the LPE1.
- A document pack was issued to me with numerous documents, one was a LPE1.
- Covering letter from Solciitor did not highlight and make reference to the LPE1 works.
- Cost on LPE1 was £4k in (2021) but work now completed and the bill will be in the region of £15k (2024).
- Still no final bill as of yet due to Local Council, despite regular pushes from me, but now I am out of time to complain to The Legal Ombudsman.
- Complaint to Solicitor made at time of discovery, advised me they didn't have to make me aware but a gesture of good will of £3k offered.
- Upon receipt of the £15k notification from the Council I submitted a claim via my insurance for Legal assistance in a claim for Professional negligence.
- My Insurance have today declined my claim




- My Legal Expenses insurance have appointed a solicitor who has declined my claim for professional negligence for the following reason -


The LPE1 form Section 4.8 was completed as follows - Within the next 2 years, are there any Section 20 works proposed to the Property? Box was ticked 'anticipated'.

I am of the opinion that the evidence does not demonstrate that the conveyancing solicitor had a clear duty to alert you about the potential building works attached to your property under the contract. The key factor is that these works were not definite or formally planned at the time of your property purchase, there were merely in the stages of anticipation, as per the disclosure on the LPE1. As it stands, the opposition could reasonably argue that you were sufficiently informed based on the details at the time (as disclosed to you) and chose to proceed with the purchase regardless. This perspective weakens the viability of your claim, leading me to the unfortunate conclusion that the prospects of success are.

My question is - is this a valid reason to decline? Thank you

[Lorney]

Here is a copy of the document in question. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[atticus]

Insurers like to weasel out of paying for things. In my view this is not a question of evidence. The correct questions are:

1.Was your conveyancer under a duty to draw this reply to your attention? (I think yes.)

2. What would you have done if this had been drawn to your attention? (I guess you might have tried to find out more.)

[Lorney]

Thank you Atticus.

May i ask another question?

So would the damages be foreseeable as per the works detailed on the form?

Thank you again.

[Pezza54]

Please read the article "When does a leaseholder have to pay for improvements?" at KDLLAW
In particular the case London Borough of Hounslow v Waaler (2017)
The appeal court decided the landlord must take into account what is rational and reasonable and consider the impact on leaseholders when making a charge for improvements
In your case there is a big difference in the anticipated charge per leaseholder calculated to the penny, £4,017.33 as opposed to the actual charge, approximately £15k

How do other leaseholders feel about this charge? Has a leaseholders meeting been arranged?