Gloucester 1

33 Gloucester Avenue

The Challenge:
Fix longstanding water leaks and repaint external walls

Fix longstanding water leaks and repaint external walls

33 Gloucester Avenue

The Challenge

Gloucester Court was a site in urgent need of repair and redecoration. Having obtained various quotes, confused by various prices, the residents instructed Ringley to make sense of the problems. The walls were saturated, paint was peeling off, some windows were falling apart due to decay, hoppers and downpipes were also so clogged up with rubbish they were effectively useless.

The Solution

Ringleys Building Surveyors produced a specification of works, which then tendered. Ringley's contract administrators made regular site visits, checking the works are to the client's expectations. The job included Fixing longstanding water leaks Assessing windows for resin repairs or replacement Repairing defective render and decorate Overhauling hoppers and guttering to stop water overflowing Repainting external walls The before and after photos show how quality workmanship and expert project management really does go a long way.

Customer Comments

" Ringleys Building Surveyors produced a specification of works, which then tendered. Ringley's contract administrators made regular site visits, checking the works are to the client's expectations. The job included Fixing longstanding water leaks Assessing windows for resin repairs or replacement Repairing defective render and decorate Overhauling hoppers and guttering to stop water overflowing Repainting external walls The before and after photos show how quality workmanship and expert project management really does go a long way. "
Gateley road

The Challenge:
2 Gateley Road - Leasehold Enfranchisement.

2 Gateley Road - Leasehold Enfranchisement with Absent Landlord who turns up


The Challenge

Absent Landlord case, where the Landlord turned up after the Service of the Enfranchisement Claim Notice. Effectively the Enfranchisers by virtue of the the counter notice deadline missed have the opportunity to follow the Vesting Order process with the Court to have the premium based on the Claim Notice offer price. Due to the time restraints of our client, it was decided by our client to attempt to negotiate with the Landlord outside the Statutory process.

The Solution

While ensuring that our client's interests were protected against statutory deadlines, we sent lodged the appropriate claim at the county court, while these negotiations went on. A fair premium was established between the parties that reflected our client's best interests in the process. However, the Landlord was asking for all unpaid ground rent to be paid. We made his representatives aware that due to limitation Act Successfully reduced the ground rent that was payable to six months. Among the things he was asking for was that all ground rent be paid upon completion. We ensured that the terms of the deal were covered within a Tomlin Order which is a court agreement between the parties.

Customer Comments

" While ensuring that our client's interests were protected against statutory deadlines, we sent lodged the appropriate claim at the county court, while these negotiations went on. A fair premium was established between the parties that reflected our client's best interests in the process. However, the Landlord was asking for all unpaid ground rent to be paid. We made his representatives aware that due to limitation Act Successfully reduced the ground rent that was payable to six months. Among the things he was asking for was that all ground rent be paid upon completion. We ensured that the terms of the deal were covered within a Tomlin Order which is a court agreement between the parties. "
Hatherley court

139 Hatherley Court, Hatherley Grove, London, W2 5RG

The Challenge:
Lease Extension

Hatherley Court

139 Hatherley Court, Hatherley Grove, London, W2 5RG

The Challenge

Freeholder Challenged the right for the LVT to determine the terms and valuation of the Lease Extension as being outside the timescale. The Landlord's Surveyor seemed to settle and then backtracked on the amount. Which we would attempt to us to our advantage Clauses they were trying to include as 'modernisation'. Implementation of VAT on charges, indemnity clause on Landlords costs, interest rate.

The Solution

Counter Notice: £33,500 Settlement: £30,000 Pre-review was held, which the Respondent did not attend. The LVT agreed that the application was within time, and apologied for the need We opposed the imlementation of those Covenants and were prepared to dispute them at LVT. The Client in these circumstances did not wish to incur the costs of proceeding and instructed us not to pursue them. But some terms were agreed.

Customer Comments

" Counter Notice: £33,500 Settlement: £30,000 Pre-review was held, which the Respondent did not attend. The LVT agreed that the application was within time, and apologied for the need We opposed the imlementation of those Covenants and were prepared to dispute them at LVT. The Client in these circumstances did not wish to incur the costs of proceeding and instructed us not to pursue them. But some terms were agreed. "
0333s

77-81 Harcourt Terrace London, SW10 9JP

The Challenge:
The pros and cons of fibreglass roofing and infra-red investigation

Case Study - Infra-red and Fibre glass Roofing

77-81 Harcourt Terrace London, SW10 9JP

The Challenge

Here we picked up after the block had instructed an external surveyor and only 2 years after major works were having severe problems with their roof. Somebody in the past had agreed/been persuaded to change the specification from a typical built up felt roof suitable for a Recency conversion to a fibreglass roof. The benefits of fibreglass roofs are their long lifespan of approximately 20 years, easy repair when damaged, extended or refurbished, and high security, making it hard for intruders to enter. However, fibreglass is quite expensive and manufacturers produce it to only certain standards, meaning it cannot be customized to specific dimensions.

The Solution

We picked up the diagnosis, testing and eventually infra-red survey to find the fault. The process of the investigation would have involved infrared cameras which pick up distant temperatures using radiometric thermal imaging. This way we could detect any issues with moisture, heat in electrical systems, clogs, leaks, etc. Interim repairs to the fiberglass roof have been carried out whilst the block awaits the painful collection of more money having had the wrong type of roof installed.

Customer Comments

" We picked up the diagnosis, testing and eventually infra-red survey to find the fault. The process of the investigation would have involved infrared cameras which pick up distant temperatures using radiometric thermal imaging. This way we could detect any issues with moisture, heat in electrical systems, clogs, leaks, etc. Interim repairs to the fiberglass roof have been carried out whilst the block awaits the painful collection of more money having had the wrong type of roof installed. "
Rathcoo

16 Rathcoole Avenue, London, N8 9NA

The Challenge:
Gwyneth Mae Hawkins

16 Rathcoole Avenue - Lease Extension absent landlord

16 Rathcoole Avenue, London, N8 9NA

The Challenge

1) Getting the lowest premium possible for the client, as well as discounting the premium due to costs incurred throughout the proceedings.

The Solution

Claim Notice was served in the offer value of £30,425. As the Landlord was absent, no counter notice was received. LVT determined premium of £40,013 Court awarded costs of £1071.53 to be discounted from premium and therefore premium wa £38,941.47 in total.

Customer Comments

" Claim Notice was served in the offer value of £30,425. As the Landlord was absent, no counter notice was received. LVT determined premium of £40,013 Court awarded costs of £1071.53 to be discounted from premium and therefore premium wa £38,941.47 in total. "

56 Canning Road

The Challenge:
Ringley Legal helped leaseholders to manage their own building

Taking over management from the landlord

56 Canning Road

The Challenge

Help needed in relation to taking over management from the landlord if only 50% of the leaseholders at the building agreed to this.

The Solution

All four leaseholders agreed and leaseholders are now managing their own building e.g. paying to get renovation done.

Customer Comments

" All four leaseholders agreed and leaseholders are now managing their own building e.g. paying to get renovation done. "
0383s

Garden Mews Berkshire SL1

The Challenge:
to vary the lease clause that required accounts to be audited

Changing the lease to omit the requirement to audit service charge accounts

Garden Mews Berkshire SL1

The Challenge

Clause l3 of Lease required the freeholder to audit the service charge accounts. With the cost of an audit being £2,500 upwards and the cost of the typical requirement for this size of block being a 'service charge verification', both carried out by a Chartered Accountant the clause was considered overly onerous for this size of block. The cost of a service charge audit was not only the most expensive item in the service charge budget, but cost about £1,000 more than the management fee, £1,500 more expensive than the buildings insurance and believed to offer less real value to the leaseholders.

The Solution

An application to the Tribunal under Section 37 of the 1987 Act which is the procedure to vary a lease where not 100% agree. for 9+ flats - you need 75% to consent and not more than 10% opposing, for up to 8 flats you need all but 1 party to consent. The result - a more 'reasonable' service charge.

Customer Comments

" An application to the Tribunal under Section 37 of the 1987 Act which is the procedure to vary a lease where not 100% agree. for 9+ flats - you need 75% to consent and not more than 10% opposing, for up to 8 flats you need all but 1 party to consent. The result - a more 'reasonable' service charge. "
0500s

Riverside Plaza

The Challenge:
To advise on the premium for a change of use from commercial to residential

Change of Use - Premium to Charge

Riverside Plaza

The Challenge

The previous managing agent and freehold company advisers to this Client had been letting changes of use happen without seeking a fair premium to the freehold company. The owner of the leasehold premises which was B1 use had obtained approval from the council under the prior approval procedure to change the use from offices (Use Class B1(a)) to a self-contained flat (Use Class C3(a)). The leaseholder now needed the freeholder's consent.

The Solution

Ringleys Valuation Department valued the premises and established that depending on how the marriage value was to be split between the units the premium should be between £21-42,000.

Customer Comments

" Ringleys Valuation Department valued the premises and established that depending on how the marriage value was to be split between the units the premium should be between £21-42,000. "

The Challenge:
Taking over fom the Head Leaseholder after 30 years

Stourcliffe RTM Company Ltd


The Challenge

Ringley took over from the Head Leaseholder after 30 years of neglect with elements of the building in an un-repairable state. Threatened by a dilapidations claim, the Leaseholders decided to set up a RTM Company and move the repair and redecorations forward with Ringley's assistance.

The Solution

Stakeholder engagement was critical. This involved careful liaison with the Freeholders Agent, Head Leaseholders' Solicitors and, Directors of the RTM Company. All leaseholders needed to 'buy into' the project given that the windows are demised to them. The planning department granted consent and through careful procurement of the windows. Ringley saved the site £250.000 on the cost of the windows and £378.000 overall

Customer Comments

" Stakeholder engagement was critical. This involved careful liaison with the Freeholders Agent, Head Leaseholders' Solicitors and, Directors of the RTM Company. All leaseholders needed to 'buy into' the project given that the windows are demised to them. The planning department granted consent and through careful procurement of the windows. Ringley saved the site £250.000 on the cost of the windows and £378.000 overall "
St dunstan s estate

The Challenge:
The project was split to help assist in raising funds.

St Dunstan's Management Ltd


The Challenge

This project in Canterbury was split into two phases to assist with raising funds. We met with the site manager to ascertain the shortcomings of the last decoration cycle and discussed with the site Directors funding requirements. With the site Directors we also took on liaison with owners regarding access to the flats for internal inspections as necessary.

The Solution

Commenting on the work, our client said "That's very good news about coming in under budget for the project - thank you. There were positive comments about the quality of the redecoration at the meeting and I know this was also due to your (the surveyors) efforts, a point that we recognised in the Directors' report"

Customer Comments

" Commenting on the work, our client said "That's very good news about coming in under budget for the project - thank you. There were positive comments about the quality of the redecoration at the meeting and I know this was also due to your (the surveyors) efforts, a point that we recognised in the Directors' report" "
2 of 3