Ah yes. I imagined there would be a prompt and totally sealed answer as usual.
Everything places the onus on individuals to effectively become project managers
and also understand million pound budgets which , even after having looked at a few
of them – are so complicated that I would defy anyone to have the time to do any of this
I still think paying for a service can been seen as agreeing to the cost .
Here below from the government website is the section.
Disputing a charge
You may be able to apply to a tribunal if you pay a charge and you:
think it’s unreasonable
think the standard of work it relates to is unsatisfactory
don’t think you should be paying it at all
Contact Leasehold Advisory Service for advice.
You can’t apply to the tribunal if:
NB THIS ONE : you’ve agreed to pay the charge
the dispute is already being dealt with, eg by the court
you pay a fixed charge
Will then the new bills have a clause mentioning that paying does not constitute
agreeing to the bill?
I also got a message from leaseholder services saying that Camden wouldn’t necessarily
be paying in advance for the work. Meaning really that Camden are using leaseholder
money for some other purpose before the final payment.
It is notoriously near on impossible to prove bad workmanship even with the shoddiest of jobs.
Lakehouse for instance came and painted our doors when they were shut, installed unnecessary
aerials and the times I listened in to the workmen there were cases of plaster board being
put up before electrical works had been agreed. I won’t go on.
Its interesting Mike got back so quick. I wonder why?