Please click on the following questions to see answers to issues, including those raised by Triplark in their letter to leaseholders of 2nd May, as well as queries raised by the Northwood Hall Leaseholders' Group (NWHLG).
1. Do we have to buy Triplark’s 30 flats?
2. Is Lindmead’s indemnity worth anything?
3. Can a participant really defer payment of their contribution in relation to their own flat?
4. How much do you have to pay to a shareholders’ fund?
5. Who fills the black hole that would be created in the service charge fund if the 31 leaseholders succeed with their claims and defences in the litigation with the Manager?
6. Who will manage the building when the enfranchisement is completed and we seek to remove Maunder Taylor?
7. Will the new 999 year lease be any better than what we have now?
8. Will it really be Lindmead that controls the enfranchisement company? Will the Lindmead directors and the participant directors have equal voting rights at meetings?
9. How does the enfranchisement company get to a ‘dividend’ of £20,000 to £30,000 for each participant leaseholder from a potential roof development?
10. What will be the impact on the enfranchisement if the garages are not included?
11. What is the risk to leaseholders if Lindmead were to become insolvent or otherwise be unable to fulfil its obligations under the Participation Agreement?
12. Triplark’s suggestion of an alternative freehold enfranchisement backed by them — should we take this seriously?
13. NWHLG has asked: As a shareholder of the company, flat owners can be called on to make a financial contribution [under the provisions of the Articles of the Freehold Company] at any time and they won't have the protection of the Tribunal (FTT) if they want to complain about those charges. Is there any limit as to how much this could cost flat owners in future?
14. NWHLG has asked: Who will really be in control? As there are only 4 directors, if only one Northwood Hall director voted with Lindmead (the White Knight investor) there will be no realistic way of the other shareholders (i.e. flat owners) being able to override such a vote, even if the majority of flat owners disagreed.
15. What will happen to the heating system, the pipework and the current corridor renovation if the enfranchisement takes place? If you intend to remove the existing horizontal pipework and revert to a vertical rising system, on what basis do you justify that approach technically and what would be the costs?
16. What professional technical advice have we obtained to support this alternative approach?
17. How have you determined that this alternative approach will cost less than the proposals of Maunder Taylor to retain the horizontal pipes and build the false ceilings? How will it be paid for?
18. Once the freehold is acquired, do you intend to proceed with this alternative approach?
19. Will the alternative approach of removing the horizontal pipes not give rise to more disruption and delay?
20. Will the reversion to vertical risers result in additional works and disruption in our flats?
21. Will the legal costs of the current litigation result in hundreds of thousands of pounds being levied against the service charge?
22. Is the Freehold Company going to get involved in litigation against the likes of CBG and Canonbury? If so will the shareholders have to fund this and risk suffering loss if the litigation does not succeed?
23. If the enfranchisement is successful, but the 31 litigants are unsuccessful in their legal claim, how would the Freehold Company deal with the unpaid service charges of those litigants? Will the Freehold Company pursue payment from the 31 litigants?
24. If that situation did arise, would the 2 current participant directors not have a conflict of interest because they would need to recover large service charge arrears from themselves?
JULY 2018
Copies of leaflets distributed to Northwood Hall leaseholders can be found here.