By Steve Roulstone
Before Christmas this year, I wrote about an LVT case where having proven that the RMC we were acting for were correct in their actions, the remaining Leaseholders had been left to pay the not unsubstantial costs for fighting the case bought by one Leaseholder against the RMC. These costs, as pointed out at the time, were mainly bought about because of the manner in which the LVT instructed us to respond to each and every point raised by the Leaseholder, both in substance and number of points raised.
No recourse.
I have spent several weeks, again making sure no further costs were generated in investigating the situation and without charging for my own time, discovering, that even though the case brought against the Management Company failed in every point, that there is no re-course what so ever to the leaseholder responsible, at all. I am staggered by this, because it now means that the remaining Leaseholders will all share the resulting liability between them and be forced to pay for one persons inability to understand the Landlord and Tenant act and its implications when applied to accounting methods.
Wring case, wrong time.
It would be impractical to list the case as presented to the LVT, but I really cannot understand how, with the knowledge of what the case was based upon, we were instructed by the LVT to have to go to the lengths we were instructed to go to, when had they insisted upon a pre-trial hearing, which is in their power to call, the facts behind what the Leaseholder wanted from the action bought, did not fall within the remit of the LVT in the first place. Having requested such a hearing, I do not believe it fair either to hide behind any lack of request ‘with specific detail listed’ as the LVT should direct in these matters, exactly as they did during the three day hearing!
This is a result?
So the LVT instruct us to put a great deal of time and effort into answering to the case, which has the effect of generating cost that the LVT awarded, so they can be recovered, but not from the Leaseholder who brought the case in the first place, apart from their equal share, but from the remainder of the Leaseholders on the site, when the actual wishes of the Leaseholder who brought the action, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the LVT !! We have done our best to gain instruction from the LVT of our options to seek direct recourse, but rather than tell us the law will not allow such actions, we were again advised to seek the information elsewhere, which, if not for relationships called upon from our contact base, could have caused further cost in discovering the RMC is powerless under these circumstances.
Some may call that justice; some may say that the LVT exists to protect Leaseholders, not by my book, not in this case!
I am a Director for the said development managed by Castle Estates. On behalf of my co-Director and myself, I would like to express my gratitude to the team for the professional, determined manner in which the case was handled.
I also agree that the LVT should have the power to decide where the responsibility of the costs incurred lie, and therefore, be able to apportion the costs to the losing party.
I am sure that leaseholders on our development that I and my co-Director represent would also agree with this….why should they pay because one leaseholder decided to take a case to the LVT?