13

​

​

This question is largely answered by the response to Triplark’s Question 4.

 

However, it is worth repeating that no financial contribution can be required unless a majority of participant leaseholders votes in favour at a general meeting. Lindmead cannot impose such a cost on leaseholders, a majority have to agree to any contribution. Therefore the limit is how much we as leaseholders agree we are willing to pay. 

 

Compare this to the situation under the current service charge regime where Maunder Taylor can impose his estimated £2.25 million for the corridor works. Leaseholders have no say whatsoever regarding that “financial contribution” — no vote, just the right to challenge the reasonableness at the FTT. What value is that right when we all know how challenging and costly it is to take such an action in the Tribunal?

 

Ironically, in raising the concern that leaseholders may lose the protection of the Tribunal, the NWHLG is the very same group that has been so vociferous in criticising those leaseholders who have had the conviction to stand up to Maunder Taylor and take legal action to challenge his previous unlawful demands. You do not get any protection from the Tribunal unless you are willing to act and to litigate.

 

In any case keep two key points in mind:

 

• What is preferable — a cost that can be imposed on you only with the agreement of a majority of participant leaseholders? OR a cost (service charge) that can be imposed on you without any say? (unless you want to spend a lot of money taking it to the FTT).

 

       BUT

 

• currently we are likely to have to continue the service charge regime for the foreseeable future (see response to Triplark question 4).