The freeholder is responsible for all outside maintenance.
The cost of general repairs is recoverable from the service charge.
The freeholder who as I said was the original builder is trying to claim the cost of repairs under that lease clause.
My contention is that given the circumstances he has no right to do so.
I am an Architect/with experience in building failure investigation (Not litigation). Maintenance would not have helped as, 1). An engineers report clearly states Reo is not in the correct location.
2) It is my view that the concrete floor to the balcony was not waterproofed. At present I have no proof of this. But my feeling is that this was the principal reason for failure.
Would the above change your view re Latent Defect? if not can you please explain why?
This is important as it is my professional opinion that all balconies will require replacement. Thus who pays design fees?
I understand that, propping was provided to one balcony but not the ones which fell, all were surrounded at G level with protective fencing & tenants were told not to use balconies. No other propping oe action was taken. This work was only done within the last 5 months.
Block has 16 flats with 12 balconies. 3 balconies fell one taken down, 5th flat damaged by falling items.
Jo one last clarification.
As I understand it the landlords building insurance is covering, the costs of all remedial works related to the fallen balconies.
But at present is not accepting a claim for replacing the balconies like for like.
If the failure is not down to wear & tear, should the balcony replacement/reinforcement be coverered under the insurance held by the landlord?
i.e. It is not a natural degradation of fabric? But an unnatural event?