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?

[Lorney]

Hello, I'm back with an update -

Good news - My bill for the Section 20 works has been reduced back to @£7k as per the original amount in the first Section 20.

Bad news - I asked for my insurance legal cover claim decline to be reviewed again and they have declined it for the following reasons -

-
Caveat emptor - emphasises the importance of understanding the terms and conditions of a contract before entering into an agreement. It is crucial for buyers to carefully review and comprehend all aspects of the contract, including warranties, limitations, and any potential risks or liabilities.
-
Within your claim, I have found difficulty in being able to say that your proposed claim currently enjoys prospects of success due to the opposing party firstly providing the documents to you months before the completion date (they didnt, I had them 12 days before completion)
- I also have a concern that you were advised to read all of the supplied documents carefully in order to provide that the correct due diligence is carried out. The reasonable defence that the opposing party have is that you were supplied with all of the relevant documentation and were told to read and understand the same.

As a result of the same, I cannot on the basis of the evidence I have had sight of to date on balance confirm that KC&C breached the duty of care owed to you, and thus therefore unfortunately cannot confirm reasonable prospects of success in pursuing the proposed claim against them further. Please understand that I am not saying there is a 0% chance of pursuing the claim, merely that I cannot confirm that prospects exceed 51% to satisfy the terms of your legal expense insurance policy on the basis of the evidence available to me at this time.



During my telephone conversation today with the Claim Solicitor, following receipt of the decline email, I advised him I had the LPE1 just for days, not months and he has agreed to look at it again and come back to me in 48hrs. I also mentioned to him The case of Brabners V The Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs which states "It is no good for a solicitor to obtain searches and simply send them to a client with no explanation. The conveyancing solicitor has a duty to flag up any issue revealed by the searches, so that their client can make an informed decision about whether to proceed with their purchase, or to reassess whether the purchase price is correct." but he said that was not relevant to his assessment.

I would appreciate any helpful suggestions on what I could do next?

Thank you

[Lorney]

Would anyone be free to have a look at my previous post dated 13th Feb?. Thank you

[Pezza54]

You could try the Legal Ombudsman
Before 1 April 2023 there were longer time limits:

6 years from the date the complainant should reasonably have known there were grounds for complaint
In exceptional circumstances and to be fair to the complainant time limits may be extended

Can you make a case of fairness and exceptional circumstances?

[Pezza54]

In post 6 you stated that the S20 works has been reduced back to £7k

Point 4.8.3 on the form states the anticipated contribution is £4017.33

You were made aware before you purchased the property that within 2 years you may need to pay £4k for redecorations and new flooring to communal areas, fire alarm upgrade, replacement front door and windows. Was all this work done?

If the solicitor's goodwill gesture of £3k still stands then you will only need to find £4k, which is the figure on the form

[Lorney]

The Ombudsman refused to look into my complaint stating the new 12 month rule. It was a 2 line rejection letter.
I will write again.

All the work was concluded and i was invoiced Jan 30th this year.

I wasn't made aware before the purchase of the planned works, which is my complaint, the form LPE1 was included in the completion pack with a large bundle of a lot of paperwork, with no explanation or advice. It was not highlighted to me as a potential risk or a future cost to me.

[Pezza54]

Definitely worth writing to the LO again, pointing out the complaint relates to events before 1 April 2023