This should be criminal. There’s need to be a serious overhaul of housing in the UK
Surely at this point all the blocks that have the flammable stuff should just do what the post office has done which is go via the civil route and sue the living shit out of kingspan
I remember looking at a flat and the agent slipped in the minor detail that the service charge was ~£250 a month. I pointed out that was a decent % of the mortgage and he said ‘but you do get 24hr concierge who will take your Amazon packages’ – like yeah oh ok please take my money!
Housing is an absolute joke in this country. Spend 50-60% of your take home on rent so you can never save for a deposit.
Or by some miracle or turn of fortune, you save up to be able to buy a 400-500k flat and then find out that the twats who built it have left behind all sorts of problems and since dissolved the company so now you’re on the hook to fix their shitty corner cutting.
strata companies in Australia were doing this back in the noughties. they took the money and were useless.
>”Notting Hill Genesis, the not-for-profit housing association operating the building, say they were also shocked by the increase in insurance premium sourced by the freeholder, but left with no choice.
>They have absorbed the increase for the 44 social housing tenants in the block, but told 30 leaseholders who bought their homes via shared ownership that they are liable for the cost.”
A good example of the two-tiered system we have in this country.
>*It said that the annual insurance premium for the building had risen from around £10,000 to £310,000.*
>*Notting Hill Genesis, the not-for-profit housing association operating the building, say they were also shocked by the increase in insurance premium sourced by the freeholder, but left with no choice.*
>*They have absorbed the increase for the 44 social housing tenants in the block, but told 30 leaseholders who bought their homes via shared ownership that they are liable for the cost.*
Hah, as if shared ownership residents can somehow afford this; they’re often not much – if at all – better off than social housing tenants. What madness and guaranteed to stoke friendly relations between neighbours.
Service charges are so high in part because the management company is appointed by the freeholder and gives the freeholder a kickback. Bizarrely, that’s all entirely normal and legal.
8 comments
This should be criminal. There’s need to be a serious overhaul of housing in the UK
Surely at this point all the blocks that have the flammable stuff should just do what the post office has done which is go via the civil route and sue the living shit out of kingspan
I remember looking at a flat and the agent slipped in the minor detail that the service charge was ~£250 a month. I pointed out that was a decent % of the mortgage and he said ‘but you do get 24hr concierge who will take your Amazon packages’ – like yeah oh ok please take my money!
Housing is an absolute joke in this country. Spend 50-60% of your take home on rent so you can never save for a deposit.
Or by some miracle or turn of fortune, you save up to be able to buy a 400-500k flat and then find out that the twats who built it have left behind all sorts of problems and since dissolved the company so now you’re on the hook to fix their shitty corner cutting.
strata companies in Australia were doing this back in the noughties. they took the money and were useless.
>”Notting Hill Genesis, the not-for-profit housing association operating the building, say they were also shocked by the increase in insurance premium sourced by the freeholder, but left with no choice.
>They have absorbed the increase for the 44 social housing tenants in the block, but told 30 leaseholders who bought their homes via shared ownership that they are liable for the cost.”
A good example of the two-tiered system we have in this country.
>*It said that the annual insurance premium for the building had risen from around £10,000 to £310,000.*
>*Notting Hill Genesis, the not-for-profit housing association operating the building, say they were also shocked by the increase in insurance premium sourced by the freeholder, but left with no choice.*
>*They have absorbed the increase for the 44 social housing tenants in the block, but told 30 leaseholders who bought their homes via shared ownership that they are liable for the cost.*
Hah, as if shared ownership residents can somehow afford this; they’re often not much – if at all – better off than social housing tenants. What madness and guaranteed to stoke friendly relations between neighbours.
Service charges are so high in part because the management company is appointed by the freeholder and gives the freeholder a kickback. Bizarrely, that’s all entirely normal and legal.