Jump to content

Coppen Estates. . . .Sheffield

Recommended Posts

Is invoicing someone different to a valid S.166? Should leaseholders ignore anything that isn't an official S.166?

Yes. Here's precisely what s.166 says (with my underlining):

 

166. Requirement to notify long leaseholders that rent is due

 

(1) A tenant under a long lease of a dwelling is not liable to make a payment of rent under the lease unless the landlord has given him a notice relating to the payment; and the date on which he is liable to make the payment is that specified in the notice.

 

(2) The notice must specify:

(a) the amount of the payment,

(b) the date on which the tenant is liable to make it, and

© if different from that date, the date on which he would have been liable to make it in accordance with the lease,

and shall contain any such further information as may be prescribed.

 

(3) The date on which the tenant is liable to make the payment must not be:

(a) either less than 30 days or more than 60 days after the day on which the notice is given, or

(b) before that on which he would have been liable to make it in accordance with the lease.

 

(4) If the date on which the tenant is liable to make the payment is after that on which he would have been liable to make it in accordance with the lease, any provisions of the lease relating to non-payment or late payment of rent have effect accordingly.

 

(5) The notice:

(a) must be in the prescribed form, and

(b) may be sent by post.

 

(6) If the notice is sent by post, it must be addressed to a tenant at the dwelling unless he has notified the landlord in writing of a different address in England and Wales at which he wishes to be given notices under this section (in which case it must be addressed to him there).

 

(7) In this section “rent” does not include:

(a) a service charge (within the meaning of section 18(1) of the 1985 Act), or

(b) an administration charge (within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 11 to this Act).

 

(8 ) In this section “long lease of a dwelling” does not include:

(a) a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56) (business tenancies) applies,

(b) a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (c. 5) in relation to which that Act applies, or

© a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 (c. 8 ).

 

(9) In this section:

“dwelling” has the same meaning as in the 1985 Act,

“landlord” and “tenant” have the same meanings as in Chapter 1 of this Part,

“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of this Act, and

“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate national authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite likely that a regular invoice will meet those requirements though. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's quite likely that a regular invoice will meet those requirements though.

No, that's not automatically so- unless each invoice complies with s.166 and features the statutory Notes for Tenants.

 

Note one other point: Coppen penalises late/non-paying tenants (leaseholders) @ £10 per year. However, based on s.166(1), a rent not lawfully due cannot be the subject of any 'late payment' allegation. Nobody receives a s.166 Notice from Coppen, so nobody should pay it that penalty fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any leaseholders ever been offered the right of 1st refusal to buy the freehold before it was sold on to the new owners Coppen Estates and PAS Property Services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have any leaseholders ever been offered the right of 1st refusal to buy the freehold before it was sold on to the new owners Coppen Estates and PAS Property Services?

 

I seem to recall my freehold was owned by Proctors (I think the old roofing company family )and they contacted me before disposing to Coppen. As there was over 900 years left on my lease and the ground rent was only £4 a year I passed at the time. My mistake the consent fee for my conservatory was not much different to the combined cost of the reversion and the legal fees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seem to recall my freehold was owned by Proctors (I think the old roofing company family )and they contacted me before disposing to Coppen. As there was over 900 years left on my lease and the ground rent was only £4 a year I passed at the time. My mistake the consent fee for my conservatory was not much different to the combined cost of the reversion and the legal fees

 

My mother in law was never told about a sale of the freehold, just notified she was to pay the ground rent to a different company.

 

---------- Post added 16-08-2018 at 10:39 ----------

 

No, never heard a single word. Should we have been offered this?

 

It is definitely the case with leasehold flats, where at least 10% of the leaseholders need informing of a sale, and given the choice of 1st refusal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone gone up against there conveyancers or estate agents for miss selling them there property?

 

---------- Post added 16-08-2018 at 12:07 ----------

 

Has anyone gone up against there conveyancers or estate agents for miss selling them there property?

 

We were never informed about the complications of buying a leasehold property, and it was never explained about the consequences of the lease dropping below 80 years.

 

---------- Post added 16-08-2018 at 12:08 ----------

 

https://www.gov.uk/leasehold-property/buying-the-freehold is the place for more info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it common knowledge though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is now, but not in 2005 when we purchased, and has only just come to light that the property has dropped below the 80 years mark of lease left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only applies to flats apparently, not to houses.

Yes. The (collective) statutory Right of First Refusal applies only to flats, not houses.

See the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/part/I

 

---------- Post added 16-08-2018 at 17:08 ----------

 

My mother in law was never told about a sale of the freehold, just notified she was to pay the ground rent to a different company.

Yes- that's usual for houses.

 

---------- Post added 16-08-2018 at 17:11 ----------

 

We were never informed about the complications of buying a leasehold property, and it was never explained about the consequences of the lease dropping below 80 years.

 

Isn't it common knowledge though?

 

It is now, but not in 2005 when we purchased, and has only just come to light that the property has dropped below the 80 years mark of lease left.

Not quite so. Leasehold problems were certainly known in 2005!

The solicitor acting for a purchaser is under a duty to explain about the lease, if the property is leasehold, and the right/need:

a. to enfranchise (= purchase the freehold reversion) if it's a house; or

b. to extend the term, if it's a flat- and, occasionally, if it's a house but money is tight.

Edited by Jeffrey Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.