Tag Archives: Current News

11Apr 2012

Current Property News: Landlords to address Legionnaires disease as well!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

There are times a as a Letting Agent that it feels as if the whole world is looking to upset your apple cart. No sooner do we get to grips with the Localism Act when along comes the HSE and offers up another tasty treat for Landlords and Agents to comply with. This time it is Legionnaires disease and the implications of removing the size limit in water tanks that has bought every rented property in the country in line with the new Code of Practise issues by the HSE.

What Next!

I am not suprised that the Industry has read the detail and asked open mouthed what else are we liable to be asked to take on board? There are cases of Legionnaires found in residential homes, but if we start looking at statistics for the reasons why people fall ill in the home, or have accidents, then Legionnaires falls way down the list of matters that need addressing! The problem is that the HSE are the organisation responsible for controlling the disease, so as soon as the 300litre tank size restriction was removed, they have no option but to advise Landlords and Agents accordingly.

It’s a silly world.

It would of course be easy to look at other areas of concern and suggest for example that stairs are banned; all glass is covered by wire protection; cookers are limited to low temperatures; kettles are banned; children are banned from kitchens and treat all areas of danger in the same manner. There are times when we all think that such matters are treated with overkill, I am no different!

Deal with the facts.

 And those facts are that the industry is now evaluating the situation and dealing with the new Code of Practise. On the face of it and the initial reaction from the Industry suggested that there would now need to be further costs generated by regular inspections of all internal water systems. But I believe that those looking at the situation will be able to give us clear guide lines as we look to take the Code of Practise on board in a practical manner.  

Tenant responsibility.

Before and between tenancies, we will ensure systems are in place to deal with the requirements. Where a Tenancy exists, we will probably develop a strategy to deal with instructing the Tenant on how to ensure the problem is dealt with during the Tenancy by following prescribed instruction at regular intervals, such as heating the water system to required temperatures especially in modern property where the system can be easily dealt with. In older properties, it may well be a requirement that any areas of concern are highlighted and dealt with through an inspection.     

Professionals.

At the end of the day, we will deal with this as we have dealt with the numerous changes in legislation introduced in the last ten years, in the right manner. As I have always said if we call ourselves professionals, we deal with matters professionally. Even though it still seems like a sledge hammer to crack a nut! I once had a Health and Safety expert as a Tenant, who questioned the standard of fence between gardens at a newly built property, because his neighbours had a dog that barked at him every time he went in the garden. His take was that it is our responsibility to protect him as our Tenant from all eventualities.

Sensible solution.

 I wondered at the time if that would include building gates at the end of the drive, chopping down the trees across the road and installing conveyer belts for use instead of the stairs. What we do do as a matter of course is address these issues in a sensible and practical way. We ensure fences offer security, dog or no dog, trust people to be able to drive on the road and not crash in too the house, have people take responsibility for tree safety, in this case the local council on an adopted road and ensure that a hand rail is in place to assist everybody using the stairs. No doubt the solution for dealing with Legionnaires disease in the home will also prove to be just as practical!

22Feb 2012

Current Property News: New PIN documents for new Tenancy – the corrected story.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Last week I posted a Blog about the changes to the way in which any Tenancy is viewed once it becomes a periodic agreement in relation to the Tenant Deposit Scheme and the various protection schemes that exist. I made a very simple mistake, because I did not take into account the initial legislation, which stipulated that the Tenant could not be charged for the procedures required to register the deposit in any way. My post, which has since been removed, suggested they could, so it is now time to correct that statement.

The changes.

The changes as brought about by the Localism act 2011 and a court case (Suupere v Nice) from July last year. They are clarification of what has always been the case, as far as what needs to be done with paperwork once an agreement becomes periodic. (Passes the fixed term without signing a new agreement) As far as the legislation is concerned, it now makes it clear that the best advice and therefore the only way to deal with the matter to hand, is that a new PIN form will need to be issued and signed, confirming that as far as TDS legislation is concerned, a periodic agreement becomes a new agreement the moment it passes the last day of the fixed term.

Cover all matters.

It therefore also makes sense to issue a new set of Terms and Conditions at the same time, to ensure there are no errors in relation to any changes that have been made to Terms and Conditions during the initial Tenancy. This is of course dependent upon the scheme with which the deposit is protected and can change from scheme to scheme.

Timing.

The one area which is still under consideration is from when it is best to issue new PIN and T&C’s from? The court case was heard last July, the legislation becomes law in April, but was entered on to the statute books last November. The jury is still out on this one, but it seems a date of the turn of the year would be a good date to start from. This means retrospectively issuing new documentation and ensuring all new agreements are dealt with from now onwards as they become Periodic. It also means ensuring that Tenants are made aware of what they will be required to do within our information packs (given to Tenants at the beginning of their Tenancy) from now on as well.

Landlords to pay.

Now to correct my mistake from last week, of course Landlords will have to pay for this service, because the initial legislation, which this interpretation of requirements is based upon, does not allow Tenants to be charged for the service. In retrospect (how easy that is!) we do of course understand why, but I have a feeling many of our Landlords will need to be convinced of why. Not the physical why, but why once again they are being asked to bear more costs!

Effect in the market.

We will now discuss how this will proceed and will be writing to Landlords whether they be Full Management or Tenant Find, to explain what they must do and what our costs will be for carrying out the role. No doubt Landlords will wish to push longer fixed term agreements on Tenants now which some could argue is not in the Tenants interest, but that is a small matter when considered against what may happen to self managed properties should Landlords ignore the requirements. So overall, another gentle nudge towards Full Management may well be the outcome, a situation we are not going to complain about! Oh and the costs, as far as we are concerned will not change whether paid by a Landlord or Tenant, so we can clearly state that we had no intentions of charging the Tenants any more than we will now have to charge our Landlords!

16Feb 2012

BBC News concentrating on the Negative!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I have used these pages on many occasions to object about the manner in which the BBC report on Property matters in the News, but lately I have been watching with more attention to the manner they report on any subject and I have to say that they are not just treating Property in a negative way, rather, everything they do seems to be done in a negative slant, a kind of; ‘the subject for discussion today is (whatever the subject may be) and here is somebody who disagrees with it!’ approach.

Institution.

I may be old fashion in my expectations, but I have always looked to the BBC to be the provider of the News, as it is, as it happens, but that is sadly no longer the case! I have stated for years that the BBC the News and insisting we listen to the opinions of everybody and anybody who takes the time to get in touch.

Mind of my own.

My problem with this is that I want to be able to work out for myself what is happening instead of being led down a line of  what the BBC construes is happening, never mind having the extreme views of ‘Mr Angry’ being added to the equation. We are told the BBC is not dumbing down, but in trying to put a spin on the News for 24 Hours a day, they have little choice if they don’t want to repeat everything every half hour!

Negativity.

But that is just the half of it, bad enough that we get individual extremist comments from people who have the time and inclination to get in touch read out as if it is a legitimate opinion (Listen to Radio 2 lunchtime show, they rely on comments from the public) but when the commentators that they produce, live or my video link, all point to a negative take on whatever they are reporting upon, what are we supposed to think?

Is it just me?

I had to make sure it was NOT just me and sure enough, over the last five days, I have failed to find any report that the BBC commentators (or guest they requested to comment) did not find a negative stance. This morning’s prime example was the news that we will soon be able to transfer monies using our phones only, really a simple process for all those who heard it, but the reporter actually stated how complicated it was! It isn’t – it’s simple!

Relating to Housing       

The issue for me now comes in how I am supposed to relate to any Housing news, when the BBC are so obviously being negative, how can anybody view the reporting if it is done to be more interesting, because it is the only reason I believe they can give for reporting in this manner, because they will be aware that people take more notice of issues made to look poor; a kind of ‘oh how can they’ reaction rather than stating that ‘ a problem has been solved’ or ‘our lives are easier because’. So where does the real news come from now if not from the BBC!

07Feb 2012

Current Property News: Higher rents good news for Mortgage brokers but not always for Landlords.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It looks as if the rent increases that we have seen on average are beginning to have the effect of allowing Mortgage brokers to have more confidence in the’ Buy to Let’ market as reports this weekend in The Daily Telegraph confirm.  Such providers as Mortgage Works and Paragon are clearly confirming their stance and the fact that potential Landlords have more choice is an added benefit with the amount of choice that is available.

Differing options.

The report makes clear that buyers have options at the moment, with deals to be done both in the open market and of course with new build as Builders need to move on and complete sites as soon as possible and move to the next plot of land that has more than likely been purchased for some time and for builders where land lies without being broken, it is no different than an unsold completed house.

Landlords taking note.

In this case, the article was bought to my attention by an existing Landlord as it had raised a query in his head about the level of rent that was being achieved at his property rather than any advantage in buying further property at the moment. His call was all about the opportunity to achieve a higher rent than he was currently enjoying and of course that is a scenario that we look after for all properties and Landlords we are charged to look after.  

Regular undertaking.

What we do every year is to look at rent levels in the spring, which is the time when most rents increase as the market achieves its natural seasonal high and the time when most people look to move. We do this by reviewing every rent where there has not been a change of Tenant in the last six months (ensuring we review in line with Landlords rights for every property at least once a year) But in this case whilst rents may be rising Nationally year on year, I had to advise the Landlord that the time was not yet right.

Market trends.

We are currently in one of those periods, where the amount of property coming on to the market is outstripping demand. Having ensured we are renting the number we would expect considering both the time of year and current popularity of renting, we know that the effect, which will exist throughout our area and therefore with our competitors as well, will be to encourage offers from tenants and mean some properties will stay void for longer than we would wish. Our answer is to attract as many Tenants to us as possible by reducing our Tenant fees for the spring.

Good advice.

So my advice had to be to hold on any rent increase until we see an increase in activity. (which will not be during the current cold spell) in the meantime, we will do everything we can to attract the Tenants and when the time is right acknowledge the increase in rents on behalf of all of our Landlords, but to encourage Tenants to look at the market when so many properties are available and when we know that Landlords will be encouraged to accept offers does not do the Landlord good service, which just goes to show, that not all reporting can be echoed in the market place and not all areas of the Country react in the same way at the same time! Perhaps it would be better if such reporting pointed out those areas can vary, because on the ground, we know that they do!

27Jan 2012

Current Property News: Conflicting reports on housing market, but confidence starting to appear.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It would seem that nobody can agree on how the property market is going to perform this year, with the same news being reported at both ends of the scale in news that has been released today. It just makes decisions so much harder for the ‘man in the street’ who  appears once again to have started to look with interest at property as a favourable route for investment.

The only way is up!

It was said on a BBC news report recently (sorry I forget the context) that the property market should be interesting for potential investors, as the only way was up! But it seems that different parties are still prepared to place the slant that is more relevant to them when market information is released, with the Mortgage Provider giving a positive slant to the news and  a community site taking the same information and presenting it in a negative light!

Professional view.

But what we are noticing is confirmation that people are reviewing property and making that decision about investing through ‘Buy to Let’ once again. Only today I have been to value two brand new properties that are nearing completion and the builder has decided that it is in his best interest to retain and rent the properties rather than sell them now, because of the perceived growth over the next few years. This was not a decision I had to encourage, it was a decision that had already been made before I even met the Landlord. What it does prove, is that professionals feel that the market has probably bottomed out or is very close to doing so.

Individual investment.

The same then happened when I returned to the office to find a couple that had dropped in for advise (I am very pleased to say because of recommendation!) who again, had already decided to ‘Buy to Let’ and were looking for information about where to buy as well as what type of house. It was good to see such confidence from both parties, who represented both the general public and the housing industry, both in just one day.

Differing responses.

Now I know as well as anybody, that one swallow does not make an English summer! But it would be good to see figures such as those reported today given in just the plain context of what they say, rather than opinion of what they represent when translation of information can mean different things to different bodies, but it does seem that gone are the days when news was reported and we were all allowed to come to our own conclusion about what that news meant to ourselves!

29Dec 2011

Tenant advice Rents falling?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

Asking rents have dipped for the first time in ten months, according to a November rent index. The drop is only a tiny 0.4% and so hardly means upgrading the Xmas dinner from turkey to a leg of beef, and means that on average so far this year rents have gone up by 3.5%. This means the average UK rent is now £717 a month but this of course masks massive regional variations, especially in London where the average rent is now 1,033 a month in London. In the index from LSL there appears to be a slight improvement in tenant finances, with 9.3% of all rent late or unpaid at the end of November, compared with 10.1% at the end of October.  Again welcome though this improvement is it is a very small change.              

Interestingly the survey estimates average yields for landlords at 5.3% but warns that landlords stand to make a loss on their properties. The average total annual return per property in November was 2.2%, compared to 1.4% in October. In cash terms, this was an average of £3,726 – equivalent to £7,700 in rent with a capital loss of £3,974. More worryingly despite these times of apparently insatiable tenant demand as would be buyers find themselves frozen out of that market, if property prices maintain the same trend as the last three months, an investor could expect to make a total annual loss of 0.7% over the next 12 months – equivalent to £1,144 per property. In terms of the arrears position although there are fewer tenants actually behind with their payments in some shape or form this in part is almost certainly down to a tougher line being taken by Landlords who themselves are finding their finances under pressure, so they are taking action sooner to ensure any new arrears cases are dealt with promptly.   

But again the picture looks bleak with a deteriorating labour market and unemployment at a 17-year high and likely to rise further. As it climbs, a growing number of tenants’ household finances (and Landlords?!) will come under strain, and overall tenant arrears are likely to climb in the coming year. 

There is no doubt that life for landlords is not as sweet as it looks and although not as hard for buy-to-let investors to secure mortgages as it is for first-time buyers, it is still very difficult. Indeed the apparent increased readiness of lenders to fund BTL again with higher LTV mortgages only make that market look healthy when compared to the residential mortgage market which in historic terms is all but flat lining. But even allowing for a slightly healthier look on the BTL front lending to property investors is still very low by historic standards. There were 34,500 buy-to-let loans in the last quarter this year compared to the same three months in 2011.

27Dec 2011

Current property News: Longhold tenancies and Licensing getting closer.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

Last week, both mayoral candidates, Ken Livingstone and the incumbent Boris Johnson, stirred up the debate on the private rented sector. Livingstone will set up a non-profit lettings agency, covering the whole of London, if elected, and would impose a rent cap of no more than one-third of the tenant’s wage. In polite terms these proposals have generally been received as coming from another planet, and totally unworkable and in fact a retrograde step. Boris Johnson on the other hand, so often considered lightweight and with his own zany comments and ideas, has confirmed his own plans to accredit private landlords and the publication of a rents map to give tenants information about rents in their area.  These proposals have been received much more warmly. 

Longer tenancies, accreditation of landlords, and incentives for landlords to use accredited agents are among new proposals being made by the London Assembly.  In its report, ‘Bleak House – Improving London’s Private Rented Housing’, it  is also calling for landlords to be given tax incentives to improve their housing stock, thought to amount to some 850,000 homes across the capital and which are lived in by one in four London households. The report, from the all-party housing and planning committee, says that a surprisingly high one-third of the properties are below standard, and estimates that one in three private landlords is a ‘rogue’ operator. This problem has always been exacerbated inside the M25 and especially in London itself by the increased numbers of Landlords who manage property themselves instead of using a regulated agent. Several years ago ARLA estimated that 40% of property within the M25 is not let through managing agents. Hence tenants also suffer, as many of the subsequent problems stay below the radar. Indeed so severe is the problem that the Assembly estimates over £1bn is needed as investment into the sector.

The report calls for the Mayor of London to develop a kitemark or accreditation ‘badge’ which sets out minimum standards of private rental housing, together with a publicity campaign to raise awareness of the scheme among tenants. It suggests that there should be standards in the private rented sector that are similar to the decent homes standard for social housing. Naturally and logically the report then urges councils to only place tenants in properties belonging to landlords who meet the standards. It also calls for agents to ensure that the properties they deal with also come up to the standards. Acknowledging that rogue landlords will never be swayed by any amount of incentives or encouragement, the report calls for the Mayor to consider greater use of selective licensing. Licensing requirements could be relaxed, it suggests, where the properties are managed by an accredited agent.      

But it is the call for longer tenancies which, if adopted, could have the greatest impact on the industry, with Assured Shorthold Tenancies a strong focus of the report. It criticises ASTs as not offering tenants sufficient security, with landlords having the right to give tenants two months’ notice to quit after four months, without needing to give a reason. The ‘Assured Longhold Tenancy’ has long been under consideration by The Law Commission and one wonders where they are while all this comment is being made on a subject they were specifically asked to look into. It says families, particularly those with school-age children, need longer security of tenure and it calls on the Mayor to lobby the Government for changes, including giving tenants protection from ‘retaliatory eviction’, possibly via the Localism Act.

The report says £400m is paid to private landlords in London annually by local authorities using the sector to house homeless people. In fact in many ways, London’s private rented sector can be regarded as a success story. The problem lies in the fact that private rented housing is increasingly acting as social housing, but without any of the standards and security. One thing is certain in these uncertain times, and that is families need certainty about where they will be living so that they can settle their children in schools and forge community links.  The London Assembly considers that in exchange for the hundreds of millions of pounds of public money they are receiving, private landlords must be compelled to provide certainty in the form of longer tenancies. They could have a point.

22Dec 2011

Current Property News: Housing stock stuck in the mud?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

Mortgages could become harder to get, with one in ten borrowers currently eligible for a mortgage being turned down in future. The Financial Services Authority has now published its long-awaited Mortgage Market Review. Its own impact assessment says that the proposed reforms could strip £2.9bn out of the economy because it would mean fewer people buying and selling homes, and lead to a dramatic drop in mortgage lending, affecting one million borrowers. The FSA’s final consultation paper is designed to put a permanent end to the lending excesses that were prevalent pre-credit crunch. But the crackdown could have a severe impact on the already ailing housing market. Among its many recommendations is a new ‘affordability’ regime, which will include looking at a borrower’s household spending plus a ‘stress test’ for how a borrower would cope if interest rates went up.

The incomes of older people, those aged 50-plus and coming up for retirement, would be particularly put under the spotlight. In effect the responsibility for checking affordability passes from mortgage adviser to lender, and most mortgage sales will have to be advised rather than simply executed.
The FSA’s proposals also stipulate that borrowers will not be able to factor in the possibility of future house price rises, but must be able to show other, more robust ways of being able to pay back their mortgage. In an environment where lenders are already being extremely cautious with their lending criteria and indeed cherry picking there is a danger that by placing all affordability assessments at the doors of lenders’ risk teams, this could create an even stricter lending environment.
For mortgage prisoners in negative equity, there is a ray of hope in the proposals, which suggest that the usual affordability tests are waived for such home-movers provided they have a solid track record of repayments.

However it is not just first time buyers who are suffering, next-time buyers are having it even tougher than first-time buyers, says a startling new report from Lloyds TSB.  It says that the housing market has become the most unaffordable for ‘second-steppers’ in 24 years. Many bought at the peak of the housing market in 2007 but are now unable to move on, having seen the value of their home fall by an average of 23%, leaving them £10,000 in negative equity. The second-steppers, typically aged between 25 and 34, also need to earn more than first-time buyers in order to make their move – and persuade someone to give them a mortgage. In the South-East, the average price of a second-time home means  a second-stepper would have to borrow nearly seven times average earnings – which of course the SA proposals above would not allow even if a lender was foolish enough to offer such a loan..   

Even in the Midlands – the most affordable region for second-time homes – someone trying to move up the property ladder would have to borrow four times their average salary. The home affordability ratio has risen to 5:2 for second-time buyers – the highest level since records began in 1987. The ratio for first-time buyers is 4:1. In 2007, the reverse was the case. The issue of second-stepper affordability is a key one in trying to get the housing market moving again, with the current difficulties in this segment of the market restricting the supply of starter properties for first-time buyers as well as preventing many of those who need to move from doing so.

19Dec 2011

Current Property News: FSA Mortgage rules, are we all mad?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

This will not be a long blog, but I just could not believe the news today about the new Mortgage rules being discussed by the FSA. My immediate thought (after – is it me?) was where have they been for the last two years? Are they seriously saying that this change is going to be the answer to a problem which happened three years ago? What was the industry supposed to do for the last three years wait?

Answers in the reporting.

And then I read and watched on the news, Paul Smee, the Director General of the Council of Mortgage Lenders stating that these changes have actually been adopted and made by the mortgage companies themselves for some time. A fact the rest of us (especially people in the industry) are already aware of because we can see on a day to day basis the problems people have in getting a mortgage! Therefore the problem here is not what the FSA are saying it is how long it has taken them to say anything at all!

Even the FSA are aware!

Lord Turner, chairman of the FSA is actually quoted as stating ‘While the excesses of the pre-crisis period have largely disappeared from the current market’ in the actual report itself, so the problem, by their own admission, has virtually gone, and now they react? As I said, is it me?

Look at the track record.

The BBC reported recently that the FSA had been the major cause of the failure to control the banks in creating the boom and bust in the first place along with the rest of the press at the time and I can certainly remember more than one comment that the FSA failure in this regard was given as one of the main reasons for the organisations pending demise. In my opinion, if this is the best that they can achieve at the moment, then the sooner the day comes the better!

Polite response.

Mr Smee spoke gently (and it is very much to his credit) about the fact that this idea was nothing new, indeed an improvement on an earlier statement on the issue by the FSA but the fact you cannot get away from is that it is of no use whatsoever in dealing with either the problem or the solution, because it is far too late! The questions that spring to mind are numerous, but one of the most important ones is why this organisation is so distant from the real world?  And are we all mad for listening to them? Or are they losing so much credibility that actually nobody actually does listen anymore?

16Dec 2011

Property Landlord advice: Block Management: Who does the LVT really serve?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

If a Leaseholder of a site managed by an RMC has a complaint about costs and services, the traditional route for that complaint, if the Leaseholder feels the Management Company has failed to address the issues concerned, is the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) whose job, as stated in the title, is to ensure that Leaseholders are receiving value for money in both the charges levied, money spent and services provided.

On behalf of the Leaseholder.

Therefore, when a Management Company is the subject of a tribunal bought by a Leaseholder, you would assume that the process is there to protect Leaseholders and ensure they ARE getting value for money and that their interests are being taken care of. Especially for investment Landlords, who have of course utilised property as their chosen route of investment, probably of their pension or main asset to be realised upon retirement. But this has proven not to be the case for a tribunal that has just reached determination by the LVT for all of the leaseholders of the site concerned.

Initial problem.

When the paperwork arrived at our office the first thought that entered our heads was why this action was being bought against the RMC concerned (we received it as the Managing agent of the site in question) and upon investigation, realised that the case the Leaseholder had bought was not only wrong in our opinion, but that it was going to take a lot of time and effort and professional advice to fight it on behalf of the RMC. Indeed specialist knowledge was most important and must be required for nearly every Agent in our position, because such matters whilst not rare are not common occurrences and as the LVT Chairman stated in this instance, rarely reach such complicated levels as was produced by the Leaseholder concerned.

Long story short.

The case itself and the detail surrounding it are not central to my main point here, but midway through the process, having answered in a way that we felt was relevant and confirmed what we believed to be the truth behind the case, we were clearly instructed by the LVT to give more information against every point raised in this complicated claim and in much more detail. This we did, but the outcome was that the amount of time and therefore cost that we were generating to fight the case was rising by the week. Indeed, to put together the response requested by the LVT took a total of 65 hours in one week alone. Add the cost of the professional advice, which required two trips to London by three people on two occasions and the time spent writing, processing and gathering data prior to the week spent compiling the reply and the eventual bill would amount to several thousand pounds. On top of this, the three day tribunal, again for three people just kept the cost mounting up.

To fight or not to fight.

Of course, we could have left the case alone and allowed the tribunal to make a decision based upon what they managed to gather from the Leaseholder alone, but the risk, considering the claim was for over £150,000 was just too great. Then there is the position of the RMC Directors to be considered. I know why such people take up the role of Director and one requirement they should not expect to have is the kind of specialist knowledge needed to fight a case such as ours. An argument of mine during the case was that if all Directors were supposed to be as knowledgeable as the Leaseholder who bought the case against them obviously was, then 90% of the sites in this Country would never attract a Director at all!

To the outcome!

Now here is my point in all this. We won the tribunal on all counts and were given permission to claim full costs through the collection of fees from the whole site. Now the Directors are left having to explain why the Leaseholders will all face an increase of nearly 25% on next year’s Management fee and all because of the actions of one Leaseholder. But if the LVT is duty bound to listen to such cases, then the Management Company must have the ability to claim the cost of fighting the case and their only route is through Management fees as they have no other source of income. So the obvious point is in what way does this outcome protect the interest of the Leaseholders on this site? The answer unless somebody can tell me differently, is that it does not and I know full well, that the costs generated were very reasonable, having pulled in favours and attracted the support of specialists in Block Management for at least one full day for nothing (purely because of the subject matter itself)

Better way.

For me the Management Company should have a better route for recourse and if the LVT can demand such a high level of input from the respondent then they should have more powers in determining where the responsibility of the costs generated should lie. Perhaps if that were the case then those bringing such actions in the first place would take in to consideration the possible implication of their actions before bringing a case, which unless we find out otherwise, will have no more impact on them than the rest of the property owners on the same site!