'I was gobsmacked' - Leaseholders hit with £108k bill for roof repairs
- Credit: Sarah Burgess
A horrified leaseholder left jobless by the pandemic could have to pay £10,000 for roof repairs he can't afford.
Alok Baluni, 46, is one of 11 flat owners at Marlborough House on Grove Road in Norwich required to collectively foot a proposed £108,000 re-roofing bill from Watsons estate agents, which took on management of the property in October 2020.
Leaseholders have been told paying for the bill is a legal requirement, with a surveyor identifying "major issues" that Watsons claims had not been previously addressed.
However, two of the three top-floor leaseholders we spoke to said they never had leaks, and were "baffled" by why the roof suddenly needed complete replacement.
Mr Baluni, who paid £162,000 for the leasehold to the flat five years ago, has along with others paid quarterly maintenance charges of £450 — but Watsons said these do not cover "unforeseen major works" such as roof replacement, and that when it took over the management nothing had been left in reserve.
You may also want to watch:
Mr Baluni said: "I was gobsmacked when I saw that bill come through my letterbox in July.
"I've lost my job because of the pandemic, and have a wife and eight-year-old daughter to care for. It's giving me sleepless nights.
- 1 Police swoop on Norwich address
- 2 Two men in critical condition as multiple people stabbed
- 3 Norwich cat torturer who murdered pensioner ‘planned to carry on killing’
- 4 Community in shock as murder investigation launched
- 5 Asda and Amazon urgently recall items due to safety concerns
- 6 Suburb's shock after mugging attempt leaves teen laying on path
- 7 Murder investigation launched after body of man found in Norwich flat
- 8 Speed signs to FINALLY be installed at 'accident hotspot'
- 9 Charity boss in battle with driver who keeps nicking loading space
- 10 Veterans plan alternative Remembrance Service after council's is cancelled
"Apparently all our monthly charges are good for is someone coming to hoover the landing and cut the grass every six months."
But a Watsons spokeswoman said: "As responsible agents, we must act diligently to remedy issues as and when they are identified.
"The repair works require carrying out now due to the condition of the roof.
"We always urge leaseholders to review their leases in respect of understanding their obligations."
Watsons has initiated a Section 20 consultation of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, whereby all leaseholders are given the opportunity to respond to the proposed works.
It said whatever is decided by the consultation is legally binding for Mr Baluni and his neighbours.
In the proposed estimates sent to leaseholders, £73,367 is for the contractor, £7,336 for contingency fees, almost £10,000 as a project management fee to Watsons and the rest is VAT.
The spokeswoman added: "While no request for payment support [from leaseholders] has yet been made, we have already confirmed when the time comes we would happily discuss potential payment plans with the freeholder of the property.
"We sympathise with the position of the leaseholders but our role as managing agents is to maintain the fabric of the building on their behalf.
"No reserve fund was built up historically but we have allowed provisions for this in the budget moving forward."
Mr Baluni is trying to establish a Residents' Association to challenge the bill.
Fellow leaseholder Christos Sofupoulos said: "I am more than happy to contribute to a new roof if that's what we need to keep us safe.
"But nearly £110,000 is too much out of the blue. They should have planned for this.
"We've been told whatever Watsons doesn't use will be returned to us, but in my experience that never happens."
Neighbour Leon Nockolds said he too was "very frustrated", particularly given what tenants had paid in quarterly contributions.
"There should have been a pot to deal with this, and they should be more clear about why the works they've outlined are necessary. We had no indication this bill was coming," he said.
What are your rights as a leaseholder?
The Grenfell disaster opened up a debate about who should cover the costs of unforeseen expenses beyond residents' control — leaseholders, freeholders, developers, or a combination.
Leaseholders at the Read Mills development on Norwich's King Street, for example, were hit with a collective £60k bill back in March for fire safety checks due to flammable cladding.
You only own a leasehold property for a fixed period of time, and have to pay things like service charges or ground rent as part of this lease.
Leaseholders can apply to a first-tier tribunal if they feel service charges or charges made under an estate management scheme are unreasonable, or if they were not consulted properly during the Section 20 process.
Are you a leaseholder who has been hit with an unexpected bill? Email firstname.lastname@example.org