All flats to pay for repairs for ground floor's extension’s roof

[Whatnameisgood]

Victorian house divided into 3 flats. There’s a common fund (all 3 flats contribute) to pay for repairs to the fabric of the building , common parts etc. This would obviously cover the main roof. There is a large extension to the ground floor flat and that extension has a leaking roof. Should repairs be paid for from the house fund or by the ground floor flat. The wording of the lease doesn’t really help . Thank you!

I would think if the roof only covers a structure/part of the home owned by the residents of that flat, they should have to pay for the repairs themselves. This could be a tough one to navigate.

Ground floor flat as it’s an extension that doesn’t impact on the main build

who owns the freehold?

All 3 flats own share of freehold

Really should have been clarified when the extension was done, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If there’s nothing in the lease, I’d hope that the ground floor flat would pay. But if they don’t get it done, would it ultimately affect the stability of the rest of the building? If it would, then they might have an argument that all should pay.

Morally it should be the ground floor flat to pay - but the law often has little to do with the moral position!

It depends on the wording of the lease. IIRC there will be a definition of what the common parts are. If that roof falls under that definition then it should be something everyone pays for.

You'll have to read the whole lease. There is no substitute for that.

Were the contributions revised when the extension was proposed or completed? Do the ground floor consequently pay more? If not it would be my interpretation that they undertook to take full responsibility for the costs of the upkeep of the addition unless they explicitly requested otherwise. But, you know, IANAL.

There’s a common fund (all 3 flats contribute) to pay for repairs to the fabric of the building

Seems like the fabric of the building is the fabric of the building. Not most of the fabric but not the bit that's above one particular flat.

But it depends on what, if anything, is said in any legal documents. With it being a shared freehold, would it go on majority vote?

Insisting one flat resident pays could easily backfire when the next problem arises, and they refuse to pay because it doesn't directly affect them. Not to mention souring neighbour relations.

And does the extension predate or postdate the repair fund arrangements?

Can they claim it on their insurance instead, was the extension there before they moved in.

If there isn't a clear definition of common parts, What does the lease of the ground floor flat say in the demise? It might say something like "up to the joists of the first floor"
Can you tell us what the definition of common parts actually says in the head lease?

Are there any cross section plans of the building at the registry with lines drawn across them to show which bit is each flat? They might be on there for one of the flats or all 3. It's worth getting all the documents for all the flats as one might have something in that shows by process of elimination what must therefore be included in the ground floor's responsibility.

This is one of those annoying "doesn't come up very often" but although it sounds simple, no one has a clue what the answer is, kind of things.

Also, there should be a licence for alterations that allowed the ground floor extension to be built - has anyone got a copy of that? It's not something the land registry would normally have.

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate the input. I’m the middle flat and I’ve said I’m fine to use the common fund as a) insurance has covered a lot of the cost already and b) I don’t want to sour relations.

Unless the lease specifies othewise, I would expect the cost to be split equally between the three flats. If the roof isn't repaired, it will eventually impact on the rest of the building.

It should be split equally between the 3 flats

If the main roof leaked you wouldn’t expect the people who live in the top floor flat to pay the bill now would you?

I had a share of freehold flat. Top floor of 3. Ground floor had an extension done. The workmanship was so shoddy. We had the lease changed to be clear that the common parts did not include any of the extension. Good job as the new owners had to replace much of their flooring and roof.

I then went on to build up on a flat roof. I. Said that in exchange for not paying any development fees, I would replace the flat roof with a slate roof and for five years assume the costs of any repairs to the roof. This was written into our common fund agreement.

I think it all depends on what can be evidenced was agreed at the time of the extension, otherwise it can easily be interpreted as common parts. (although from memory the common parts were outlined in the land registry title)

Isn't this a little bit like ground floor residents saying they shouldn't have to pay for the roof of as it doesn't (directly) cover their flat?

I agree that it should be payed centrally. Otherwise you could suggest that the owners of the extension don't need to contribute to the main roof. We lived in a similar set up (never again!). The only things that were payed for seperately were garages and they were detached and clearly separate for each flat.