Nearly Legal Profile picture
Jan 21 10 tweets 2 min read
There’s been a lot of confusions about section 20 notices, what they are for and what they mean over the last few days. So, a thumbnail primer. There are basically two kinds of section 20 consultation (actual more like four or five, but two main types).
1/9
i) Where works are to be carried out to a building and the cost per leaseholder will exceed £250 per leaseholder; and
ii) Where a ‘long term qualifying agreement’ (ie a contract for longer than 12 months) is to be entered into with a contractor, or, say, a managing agent.
2/9
The first is one the one that everyone thinks of - ‘oh, a s.20 notice. It will be about works I will be charged for’. But the second is not uncommon, particularly with social landlords with multiple blocks/estates. (The idea is economies of scale. Actuality often different).
3/9
Now the first type will only be sent to leaseholders who are specifically affected by works (so, usually just a block. Sometimes an estate). But the second type - known as QLTA - could be to all leaseholders under that landlord, across many buildings or many estates.
4/9
And a QLTA s.20 notice is not about proposed works, it is about the proposed contract with a contractor to do specified types of work, if, as and when it comes up during the contract period. So the notice will specify the range of works that would fall under the QLTA, but -
5/9
That does not mean that those works will be carried out, or are proposed to be carried out, or apply to all the buildings/estates involved. It is the types of work that would fall under the QLTA, not a statement that they will happen to every block (or indeed any block)
6/9
I’m not going into the process for each - they are different - and consultation on works is different if there is a QLTA in place for those works. But these are the basic two types of s.20 consultation.
7/9
And a QLTA consultation across many blocks mentioning fire safety works/remediation does not mean that a) such works are intended or will happen to a specific block, or b) that charges for any such remediation work will necessarily be levied on leaseholders…
8/9
(It doesn’t mean that any such charges won’t be levied on leaseholders either. But as a QLTA s.20 across a number of blocks/estates is neither a demand, nor a statement that such works are intended to be carried out, it implies nothing for any particular block.)
9/9
10/9 - it should be acknowledged that once a QLTA is in place, leaseholders’ ability to challenge costings in a subsequent s.20 on works is reduced, and leaseholders have no ability to propose another contractor from whom a tender should be sought in that consultation.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Nearly Legal

Nearly Legal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @nearlylegal

Jan 21
Those behind the Polluter Pays proposed amendment keep making this assertion. I explained why it wasn’t the case based on the (finally) released draft amendment in a comment on their site before Xmas. It has been held in moderation and not published. 1/16 #PolluterPaysAmendment
I was told it would be published with a reply by the middle of last week. It wasn’t. And these assertions are still being made. So, here is why they are wrong. It means some detail, I’m afraid.
2/16
The PP amendment says there will be ‘assessors’ appointed by the Govt. These assessors will i) decide if a building falls within the scheme, ii) decide what the fire safety defects are, iii) decide how much should be awarded for works, and iv) decide who pays.
3/16
Read 16 tweets
Jan 10
Digested Gove:
£4Bn for 11-18m cladding - good but relies on developers, manufacturers etc to cough up.
‘Want Developers, manufacturers etc to fund remediation of non-cladding issues’. Well. we all want that. Question is what Govt will do about it.
Will add (cross party?) amend to Building Safety Bill to ‘protect leaseholders’ from paying safety costs. This is a big one, with a lot of questions. Which costs? Arising when? (retrospective?). Seems clear will not extend to recovering payments already made by leaseholders. And
We now have a massive period of uncertainty. What happens to bills already demanded? What should leaseholders do? Wait for an unknown period to see if any amendment to the BSB would cover them?
Read 11 tweets
Mar 17, 2021
On the Lords passing the McPartland/Smith/Bishop of St Albans amendment to the Fire Safety Bill. 1) Hurrah! 2) What happens now? The Bill goes back to the commons. But this time, unlike the govt stitch up last time, there will have to be a vote on the amendment. >
3) What does the amendment do? It is a short, neat, and quite brutal amend which would simply stop the costs of works under an order or notice under the 2005 fire safety order (amended by the Fire Safety Bill) from being passed on to leaseholders if in respect of build defects >
4) Does it dump all the costs on freeholders, as the minister suggested today? No, it is silent on who pays, except not the leaseholders. Could that mean freeholders have to pay? Yes, without something further from the Govt. Could freeholders go bust? Yes, just as leaseholders >
Read 5 tweets
Mar 15, 2021
Waiting for the House of Lords to vote on amendment 87C to the #DABill - to make it easier for a perpetrator to be removed from a joint tenancy without ending the tenancy. But earlier, saw the minister promise consultation and possible regulation in response to amend 66B. Image
The amend was to prevent a council from taking into account local connection for a victim of domestic abuse fleeing from council accommodation in another area in the council’s allocation eligibility decisions. bills.parliament.uk/Publications/4…
Pleasingly, I recognised the amend as one that was drafted by @justinbates28 and myself for the Commons stage of the #DABill and resurrected by the remarkable efforts of @womensaid and others. I didn’t know it was coming back.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 31, 2021
A couple of meta comments on the weekend’s legal related issues. 1) If I said something here in my private capacity which profoundly went against my firm’s stated values, I would expect there to be serious consequences for me. This is not about freedom of speech.
2) As a solicitor, I can choose what cases and clients I take on. Barristers can’t - if I instruct a barrister, they must do their best for the client whether or not they agree with the client’s position or like the client. This is very important. >
It means everyone can get a barrister who will argue their case as strongly as it can be argued within the law. I’ve instructed barristers who have previously argued against the legal argument I want to put forward now. I do this because they are good at their job, not because>
Read 9 tweets
Jan 29, 2021
Some thoughts ahead of the debate on building safety and the costs of remediation that Labour intend to force on Monday, and on the cladding/fire safety fiasco in general. This may be a lengthy thread (oh hell it is)… 1/23
It surely cannot be questioned that the absolute priority is that these buildings are fixed. Maybe hundreds of thousands of leaseholders (or their tenants) are living in unsafe, unmortgageable, unsellable properties. It is destroying lives and the property market.. 2/23
et alone the risk of another disaster and loss of life. So, the question is, has to be, how best to achieve the fixing of these buildings. As things currently stand, outside of the limits of the £1.6 billion in ACM and Non ACM remediation grants provided by the Govt, … 3/23
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(