Property management company - Who should pay for tree removal?

[jaba]

I've been trying to find this info out so hopefully someone will be able to at least point me in the right direction.

The property management company looking after the building and grounds that my mother has a flat in is asking all the lease holders to pay for part of a tree that has fallen to be removed.
It has also damaged a fence to an adjoining property and they want extra money from the leaseholders for this also!

They might be in their rights but there is a hefty management fee in place which I would have assumed would cover things like this!

As building insurance in this case is the responsibility of the landlord and not the lease holders as per the wording in their contracts, should the lease holders have to pay for tree removal?
Should not the landlord have insurance to cover this type of thing just like the rest of us?

I have read on a tree companies website that the owner of the tree is responsible!
I also read if fallen due to negligence if it was left diseased or decaying etc.
The garden is maintain by the management company which is paid for out of the management fees they charge!
As the leaseholders don't own the land and have nothing in writing that apart from use of the garden are the management taking the pee?

Thanx for any info.

 

[motorbiking]

Damage to the fence should be covered by Landlords insurance, but there may be an excess which he'd be entitled to reclaim. Its probably not worth the bother for a couple of fence panels. The removal of the tree and making good is likely to be down to the leaseholders. By all means get competitive quotes, if you think the claim is excess. Note the wood should has some value.

You'd be free to commission your own contractor subject to agreement from everyone to pay. (I'd go with cash up front).

 

[jaba]

Damage to the fence should be covered by Landlords insurance, but there may be an excess which he'd be entitled to reclaim. Its probably not worth the bother for a couple of fence panels. The removal of the tree and making good is likely to be down to the leaseholders. By all means get competitive quotes, if you think the claim is excess. Note the wood should has some value.

You'd be free to commission your own contractor subject to agreement from everyone to pay. (I'd go with cash up front).

Thanx for the reply.
Nope, they've not said anything about excess. The amount for the fence and tree branch removal is about the same, but leaseholders don't seem to get a vote on company used so I'll suggest they get quotes to verify costs.
management company are asking around £800 in total, seems high but I've not seen the damage myself.
It's a branch, not a tree, so as the grounds are maintained as part of the monthly fee it seems like double charging IMO, but maybe this is normal or usual behaviour for some management companies!

I just thought if landlord or management company pay the buildings insurance and already take a large fee which covers for ground maintenance it seems wrong they then come cap in hand asking for more cash!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

A branch falling and damage to a fence is hardly maintenance. If you lease a car and have a crash the owners wouldn't fix it at their expense would they?

 

[jaba]

A branch falling and damage to a fence is hardly maintenance. If you lease a car and have a crash the owners wouldn't fix it at their expense would they?

Well it depends who is at fault, doesn't it!
I'm really not sure if maintenance could be a valid argument! But If a management company maintain the property which includes the garden and if trees have not been checked for diseases and dead branches that could possibly fall, that would bring it into the realms of failing to carry out proper ground maintenance which is listed as what part of the service contract covers and a large fee is paid for!
If I can spot dead branches on trees near my property I would think it right a maintenance company getting paid to look after grounds where elderly people could be passing under one of these trees in the garden area they have a duty to maintain, inspect to at least try to avoid something hitting you on the head!
BTW, this didn't come down in a storm, no high winds etc!

 

[motorbiking]

landlord and management company should be separated, as there is a conflict of interest. However, landlord has the right to take over management if leaseholders fail. Apart from that the terms are down to what you the leaseholders agreed. The Management firm work for you. Sounds like a £575 quid quote + 15 % management fee + VAT

 

[wessex101]

It always used to be that fences are not covered by buildings insurance (but a brick boundary wall is) and I cannot see how a fallen tree could be a buildings insurance risk unless it actually hit the building and caused damage.

 

[jaba]

landlord and management company should be separated, as there is a conflict of interest. However, landlord has the right to take over management if leaseholders fail. Apart from that the terms are down to what you the leaseholders agreed. The Management firm work for you. Sounds like a £575 quid quote + 15 % management fee + VAT

I'm not sure if they are separate, but I'll check thanx.

It always used to be that fences are not covered by buildings insurance (but a brick boundary wall is) and I cannot see how a fallen tree could be a buildings insurance risk unless it actually hit the building and caused damage.

Thanx for info.
I didn't know that, seems strange why they would cover a garden wall but not the fence, but if that's how its always been so be it.
But also the service contract / management company also have a slush fund, or should I say cash they hold onto out of the service contract for fixing things to do with the property maintenance!
So if their insurance doesn't cover the damaged fence and tree removal should not part of that cash fund be used to deal with things like this?
It just seems wrong if insurance that is paid for out of the service charge doesn't cover this and the cash pot of money also for things to do with the building and grounds isn't being used, but the management company simply can ask for more cash.
It's not a cheap service charge, it seems a bit like some insurance companies they want little to no risk or dent in their profits!

 

[^woody^]

I just thought if landlord or management company pay the buildings insurance and already take a large fee which covers for ground maintenance it seems wrong they then come cap in hand asking for more cash!

Every cost relating to the buiding and grounds is typically paid for by the leaseholders. Whether its regular known maintenance costs, planned future work, or ad-hoc emergency work. Everything.

If the building is insured, leaseholders contribute to the premium and the excess.

The management firm are under an obligation to keep costs down, so unless they employ direct labour, or have a retained contractor, then they must get quotes, and you will be entitled to see them. If the work is not an emergency, and there is time, and the value will be more than £250 per leaseholder, then they must follow set consultation procedures and sever a formal notice of the proposed work - commonly called a "section 20 notice".

That tree work is not regular maintenace, it is an unforeseen repair, which leaseholders would be expected to pay extra for.

 

[Hot&Cold]

edit,

Is there a sinking fund ?

We had similar damage and the managing agent suggested dipping into the sinking fund and all the lease holders agreed.