Hi,
Our RTM company recently took over landlord functions for two dozen flats. The blocks are split across two freeholds, with two thirds of the flats on a larger freehold (more land and trees etc) and one third on a smaller freehold, both owned by the same freeholder and all now under one RTM company.
There are two 'head' leases to reflect the two developments and each one apportions costs by the number of flats within each development, but in almost all other respects are identically worded.
Historically, the freeholder's agents combined the two freeholds and apportioned all costs by equal apportionment among all the flats in the two freeholds. This has been the situation for many years without challenge by flat owners. It means that flats pay for repairs and works arising on the other freehold on a quid pro quo basis and (theoretically) enjoy economies of scale.
Is it safe for the RTM company to continue this combined apportionment because estoppel by convention now applies to protect it doing so? In other words, after so many years of flats paying for the other freehold's repairs, it would be unjust if one of the parties moved away from the combining of costs, as this would cause flats to have to pay for outgoings on their own freehold that would otherwise be split 24 ways if the convention stayed put? If that makes sense?
Or should we start to split the costs according to where they arise to avoid legal challenge, and if so, how do we compensate for historical unfairness if a large bill lands in the near future on one group of flats who previously paid out for the other group's costs?
No one said RTM would be this much fun? Any thoughts appreciated.
Our RTM company recently took over landlord functions for two dozen flats. The blocks are split across two freeholds, with two thirds of the flats on a larger freehold (more land and trees etc) and one third on a smaller freehold, both owned by the same freeholder and all now under one RTM company.
There are two 'head' leases to reflect the two developments and each one apportions costs by the number of flats within each development, but in almost all other respects are identically worded.
Historically, the freeholder's agents combined the two freeholds and apportioned all costs by equal apportionment among all the flats in the two freeholds. This has been the situation for many years without challenge by flat owners. It means that flats pay for repairs and works arising on the other freehold on a quid pro quo basis and (theoretically) enjoy economies of scale.
Is it safe for the RTM company to continue this combined apportionment because estoppel by convention now applies to protect it doing so? In other words, after so many years of flats paying for the other freehold's repairs, it would be unjust if one of the parties moved away from the combining of costs, as this would cause flats to have to pay for outgoings on their own freehold that would otherwise be split 24 ways if the convention stayed put? If that makes sense?
Or should we start to split the costs according to where they arise to avoid legal challenge, and if so, how do we compensate for historical unfairness if a large bill lands in the near future on one group of flats who previously paid out for the other group's costs?
No one said RTM would be this much fun? Any thoughts appreciated.