A GROUP of residents at Granby House, the Grade II Listed warehouse building converted to residential in the 1970s, are going to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) later this month to try and get their service charge reduced.
It’s embarrassing. You have this lovely Grade II listed exterior and walk into a lobby that looks more like a 1970s youth hostel.
Each of the 62 apartment owners in this grand old building pay a rate of almost £150 a month, which tots up to £9,300 a month or £111,600 a year, paid to Guinness Northern Counties (GNC) to make sure the building is in tip top condition.
The majority do not think this is the case, hence the tribunal hearing on March 19 in Manchester.
The lead petitioner for the appeal is Martijn de Roo who has lived at Granby for the past seven years with his partner.
He said: “It’s embarrassing. You have this lovely Grade II listed exterior and walk into a lobby that looks more like a 1970s youth hostel. We own our apartment, it’s our home and we love it but we have had seven years of drama and want things to change. It could be a grand old building, if it were kept in good condition.
“The management company is responsible for looking after everything outside our front door and we do not feel they are doing this.”
Martijn started the Tribunal process last May and asked GNC for details of the accounts and the sinking fund and there was a preliminary hearing.
Granby House
He said: “We were told it was going to be a meeting with just our Home Ownership Officer, but the management company turned up in numbers accompanied by two solicitors, it was daunting.
“The paperwork and evidence gathering is time consuming and can be intimidating but I think that if you live in a shared building and you all contribute to the costs you should know very clearly where your money is being spent and be regularly consulted.
“We have gone through over 45 pages of spread sheets detailing all sorts of costs but there are lots of unexplained items and we do not think the building is being managed efficiently.
“For instance they spent over £46,000 on external painting but residents are now facing issues with their windows due to the work carried out and the owner below us on the ground floor has had no bathroom ceiling for two years because of leaks in the communal soil stack that no-one seems able to fix.
“Yes, we have a caretaker who costs around £16,000 a year but we also seem to be paying for an external service to come in and perform small tasks the residents feel should fall under the caretaker’s responsibility which does not make sense.”
Thirty five of the 62 residents are petitioning the Tribunal for a reduction and if they are successful it could be backdated for a period of 7 years.
No wonder GNC has come out fighting.
The company is also facing Tribunals from residents in Lancaster House and 15 Piccadilly and residents in all of the three buildings may then consider pursuing a Right To Manage to give them the authority to appoint their own chosen managing agents.
It’s a long process and a Right To Manage should not be entered lightly, especially in listed buildings which will need a lot of on-going maintenance.
LVTs are operated by the Ministry of Justice and in Manchester are held on the first floor of 5 New York Street.
The Granby House Tribunal on 19 March is open to the public so anyone is free to go along and listen but the process usually starts with a site visit so don’t expect the hearing to be underway till mid morning.
I think I may pop in.
What I find nonsensical though is that whatever ruling is made it will apply only to those leaseholders on the petition.
So if they win a reduction the 35 pay less but the other 27 have to keep on paying around £150.
Surely if the Tribunal rules that a fair payment to cover the building insurance and electric and cleaning and repairs and a contingency fund is X then that figure should apply across the board.
Fair and equitable.
Presumably if the service charge is increased the 27 feel smug and if it goes down they have to take their own time consuming action to achieve parity. What nonsense.
A spokesperson from Guinness Northern Counties said: “We are sorry residents feel they have cause to object to the service charges/maintenance works.
“The breakdown of such charges has always been made openly available to every leaseholder from the very beginning of their agreement and we follow a thorough consultation procedure in relation to any works undertaken along with opportunity to report any faults or dissatisfaction with completed works through a snagging system, so they may be remedied by contractors.
“Both internal and external works are scheduled this year for Granby House.
“These are cyclical works taking place every seven years which would explain why residents feel communal areas are looking a little tired.
“With any home there comes a point when redecoration is needed and Granby House residents will be consulted as normal this year on costs and details of this. Granby House is an old building and we want to make sure it is well repaired and looking its best, at a price which is affordable to the leaseholders.”
As for 15 Piccadilly one resident’s story is so horrendous it is warranting a separate investigation but the owners of the other 18 apartments in this cute little conversion overlooking Piccadilly have specific issues.
Our charge was recently increased to pay for the roof repairs which are estimated at £250,000. We would argue that their failure to remove the tree in the first place caused more damage.
Namely about a tree that was left growing from the roof for years, damaging brickwork and stone coping. It is not clear, but would seem likely, that this caused the roof to leak. The tree has now been removed but the leak appears to still be there, as evidenced by the big damp patch on the top floor landing.
There are also on-going problems with security; a filthy carpet that should have been replaced four years ago and service charge fees of £223.75 a month.
Owner Adam Gray has lived in the building 14 years and loves the location and space but not the fees or what he feels is a lack of maintenance of the building.
He said: “I would not mind paying the service charge if I felt we were getting a great service – but I don’t. They seem to keep trying to fix things without looking at the fundamental problem. They have spent £7,000 on repairs to the door but it is still not right. A brand new door would have been far cheaper.
“Our charge was recently increased to pay for the roof repairs which are estimated at £250,000. We would argue that their failure to remove the tree in the first place caused more damage.
“We are starting gathering the evidence needed to go to a LVT and have an independent expert assess whether what we are being asked to pay is fair.”
Horrible tree created dampThe same Guinness Northern Counties spokesperson said this: “We are doing everything we can to resolve the issues with the roof at Piccadilly and would like to apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused to residents. Repairs have been made previously and we are currently in the process of appointing a contractor to carry out more in-depth roof work. Once the roof issues are resolved, we will then be in a position to replace the carpets in the communal areas.
“In preparation for the works to the roof, leaseholders’ contributions to the sinking fund at Piccadilly are currently larger than normal, making their overall service charges higher. This is to avoid leaseholders receiving a large one-off bill for works. As with all our properties, we follow a strict accounting process and all residents are aware of costs and charges ahead of the following financial year.”
