UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hi there,

I own a flat in a building in London which is in need of replacing/repairing some or all of the external cladding due to some cracks and warping appearing. NHBC (the insurer) has agreed to covering the cost representative to the percentage of space taken up by flats with NHBC insurance (the commercial units in the building did not have NHBC insurance).

The company who built, owns most units in and manages the building claim that even though the residential units are covered and the commercial units are not, the part of the cost that NHBC won't cover is to be shared between all units. Since my unit is covered I'm unwilling to share the cost with the commercial units that were not.

Has anyone heard of or experienced something similar? With the few details provided do you think myself and the other private landlords should resist agreeing to in effect paying for the uncovered units (between £3k-£5k per unit)?

Any help/suggestions would be highly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Lars

You wont get an answer I suspect as it would require a review of the terms of your agreement (Leasehold or Commonhold?).

The repairing covenants are likely to be covered in that agreement.
Look in the agreement for any distinction between the commercial and residential units. 
I suspect (total guess here) all 'units' will be categorised the same and so repairs are llegally enforceable but that is a complete guess.
I would ask why the commercial units do not have any insurance covering the damage(?) if the NHBC insurance did not cover them.

Best of luck.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts on this and sorry for the late follow up. Myself and the other private lease holders are gonna seek legal advice to have a closer look at the lease. The consensus thus far seems to be that we should question the suggested split of the cost. I will post again when I know more about the outcome. Many thanks