Freeholder proposing major repairs, none of which are needed

[sergeantmajor]

We bought a leasehold flat just 3 weeks ago. Yesterday we received a letter from the freeholder saying that major maintenance work is due, with repairs to roof, the slip road, brickwork... etc. However the road looks perfect and our recent survey said the brickwork was sound. In order to object we need to supply professional opinion.

Can't help but feel we're being taken for a ride, with a likely bill of tens of thousands for unnecessary repairs to non-existent damange!

Anyone had to deal with this? Any advice gratefully received!

Bumping ... anyone...?

I would go back to your solicitor. As part of the sales process, the freeholder (or possibly the seller) have to declare any upcoming major works. If they have lied during the sale process then you may be able to get an exemption from paying. (Even though they have only just sent you the letter, I'd be surprised if they didn't have a 5-10 yr plan outlining what might be needed).

We had the same with our flat, not long after buying they announced major roof works. We went through the solicitors and eventually the freeholder admitted that they hadn't completed the forms correctly, so we are exempt from paying. 5 years on however they have delayed and delayed the works, and we want to sell the flat, but it will impact our sale price as we have to declare it, and the freeholder won't let us pass on the exemption.

Speak to the surveyor who did your survey and ask whether they will give permission for the survey findings to be shared?

Thanks both, this is a big worry right now.
I didn't realise that I'd have to ask permission to share survey findings, so will check that out. I have been doing lots of investigation since my original post, so if anyone else finds themselves in a similar situation I'd be happy to share my research!

Remember that freeholders are only legally entitled to recover reasonable costs for repairs. This doesn't sound reasonable.

We had a similar issue. In our case the works were needed (unlike yours) but the quote from the managing agent's builder was at least double what other builders were quoting. We suspected some sort of backhander from the builder to the managing agent.

In the end I wrote to the managing agent proposing 3 other builders who would do it for less than half and saying that spending double would be unreasonable and so not legally recoverable. I said we would take it to tribunal if necessary.

3 months later would be bad enough but 3 weeks later is just taking the piss.

Your solicitor will/should have written to vendor/freeholder asking open question about what is in pipeline. The timeline is in your favour. The freeholder should have served due notice to vendor. Given it’s only 3 weeks either freeholder or vendor not properly disclosed. Good luck!