I own a flat in a block of four. The residents bought the freehold and set up a limited company to administer and spend the service charge. This all worked well until one of the residents died. He did not leave the flat to his son (who lived there and acted as his carer) as expected, but to a large charity, with the proviso that his son could live there with his family until his death.
The son does not have a great deal of money, and has refused point blank to agree to an increase in the service charge, which has been the same for 10 years. It has reached the point where the money paid in only just covers the insurance on the building. There is no money at all for maintenance, and quite a bit needs doing - the common areas need painting, it needs a new carpet, window maintenance etc. The other residents wanted to increase the service charge five years ago from £100 to £200 per month, which would have given enough of a slush fund to pay for these chores that need doing.
We (the other residents/owners) could all afford to increase the service charge substantially (it should now be at least £300) and pay for the work to get done, but to be frank, we don't see why we should subsidise him to live here (I know that sounds a bit like cutting off nose to spite face). One of the residents has asked him tactfully if the charity that owns his flat could pay the charges, but he has said that the condition under which he lives there, from his father's will, were that he should continue to pay all charges related to the flat and the building, including the service charge.
My question is, what should we do now? Should the managing company (ie the other residents) approach the charity and ask them to pay up? As the resident in question has no financial interest in the flat, it seems a bit "off" that he should be asked to pay for maintenance on the building, but equally, why should the other three residents have to live in a building needing an increasing amount of work done on it, due to the problems with one person?