UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hi folks,

I'd love to hear your views on handling a litigious, leaseholder/tenant who over-steps his authority and feels he can operate as the Landlord ...

Some background:-
Very small block residential and 1 commercial (who tends to abstain from all matters residential)
Freehold held in a company,
Company directors appointed from each leaseholders-owners/tenants (of which he is not one, his wife is). 
Managing Agent appointed by company to advise and deal with matters on an as required, expertise, cost and complexity basis.

This Leaseholder-owner/tenant (been there 2 years now) and has singlehandedly upset the equilibrium of the whole building on numerous occasions now
Falling out with neighbours, bullying and rushed MO and in the first month of his arrival had already been gently reminded that painting the windowsills of a grade 2 listed building that had been subject to a long period of renovation to return to its original consistent format was in breach of planning - which in itself caused a tirading backlash of a personal attack. 

His latest issue involved the railingroading (including the misinforming of leaseholders) of a decision by email to extract from communal funds work for internal work to his garage (outside the scope of the landlord lease).   
It transpired that paying his bill, would have led the company into a breach of Section 20, had not our managing agent flagged us (the company)
His rushed procurement of the works (before obtaining a unanimous leaseholder decision, and some otstanding queries as to scope of work) led him to instruct a contractor to build a fuckwit breeze block internal wall on the end of his single skin, ceramic floor tiled garage (walls are the same construction as everyone elses).
An EGM was called by 3 leaseholders to consider the issue as payment would clearly breach the law.
The EGM considered his request against usual company decision making processes (clarified before we all went to vote) and led to a "technical" rejection of his request for payment.

Long story short  the garage has been the subject of a managing agent appointed contractor to fix the roof and repoint the exterior wall in line with lease obligations. 
The leaseholder apparently has waterproofed the external wall, although this is disputed as his neighbouring garage has done the same and his is working.
He ignored the contractor conclusion that the water is coming under the garage door and resting probably because of the ceramic tile surface. 
Whilst the company agreed to him continuing to explore the source of the issue, it did not select or procure the services and nor was the managing agent advised of the quote until the work had already started-the go ahead given by the leasedholder - and the invoice addressed as such to him. 

So Having got a technical "no" because a tied decision was dnot a majority at the EGM,
He left telling everyone he's going to sue them for his dosh outlay -- 2,000GBP anyway (something he'd already done via email during the consultation process)
He's now issued a complaint to the Managing Agent threatening to sue them for misleading the process and misadvising him (not that he is their client in the first place the company is)
All this being too much for 1 flat - he has now caused them to place their apartment on the market - after some 15years of living. 


So my question is  :0

what's your view on the above - because I believe we  are squeaky clean in the way we have acted.
How does anyone else handle "out of scope of landlord" works, but unanimous agreement by leaseholders to pay from communal funds - or not?
and just how do you handle a small minded, follically challenged, one man dictatorship that is causing good owners to leave - 
...and the ones that stay increased costs due to clearing the shelves of Lidl of strong Gin to cope with the issue?   

:0 humorous responses are welcome

Gosh.

I tried to read this, but it was hard. If you operate like you write entries on forums there may well be some fault within you, I suppose. No offence intended, just humour.

It seems, to me, that the meetings are called and votes are taken. The people that are outvoted have to deal with that. This person appears to have been outvoted. Although he may well elect to sue on that basis, it doesn't mean he will be successful and maybe, when he tries to persuade someone to take on his case, he will get a reality check? Tied decision is still a "no" if them's the rules, right?

sorry! wish I had your ability to just cut to the point .... but the answer is yes.