Nightmare of only half the Freeholders paying for repairs?

It does sound like a very difficult position that you find yourself in. Be confident that you will find a solution, because there is one if you keep looking.

There are members here with much more knowledge and experience than me and so all I can give are thoughts on what I’d do in a similar position.

1) Is lawyer you’ve instructed a specialist in Leasehold property law? The average high street practice would not be suitable for such a case.
2) Have you spoken with the mortgage companies who have a charge on the flats not paying their due amounts? This may end up being corrected but I believe they would be interested as they expect the leaseholder to comply with the terms of the lease and where that isn’t the case, they will pay the amounts owing and add them to the mortgage.
3) Have you visited the site that has lots of advice in this area? http://www.lease-advice.org/

As above these are simply my thoughts and others will undoubtedly give more specific guidance.

Good luck with whatever direction you take and try to see this as a learning experience rather than a stressful one, as this way of thinking will allow you to think even more clearly. It may be one of your toughest lessons yet but you’ll have knowledge and experience at the end of it that will be of benefit to you and others around you and that will be a wonderful reward for your time, effort and patience.

pls explain how there are 5 freeholds and one lessee–that sounds very unusual

Lease and/or Carlex may have info–try them online for advice

I would expect the managing agent to be giving the correct advice on the liability of the leaseholders. With reference to the collection of service changes from mortgage holders is that they now will not normally pay the outstanding amount until it has been to court. They then may pay to protect their interest.
It all comes down to the leases and any other documentation which refers to paying for the maintenance of the building.

This is a problem with many leasehold flats, you are not alone. Try a ‘no fee to freeholder’ solicitor and if that fails you will have to allocate funds for a hefty court case. Our last case with the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (Now the First Tier Tribunal) cost £26,000 and we had two barristers ‘discussing the merits’ (AKA arguing) over a bill of 2 pence. We won in the end and still the leaseholder concerned did not pay. Took another two years before he sold his flat and the new owner was left with the bill.
Would be pleased to help if you care to contact me through Property 118.

Just a thought.You might like to mention to all three that if they ever come to sell they could have difficulties if there is a dispute over service charges. Purchasers solicitors and mortgage lenders are very wary of lending on anything with an on-going legal dispute.
In addition if the block is not properly maintained their saleability and value will also be reduced.
So far as the legal position is concerned that will depend on the leases but there is usually an obligation to pay ground rent and service charges (subject to them being reasonable) and if they don’t cough up the freeholder can put a caution on the title meaning they won’t be able to sell at all until it’s sorted. It’s difficult for many owners of shares of freehold to appreciate that there are 2 titles in each property i.e. the (in this case) one fifth share of the freehold of the building and a totally separate ownership of the leasehold interest. The rights and obligations of each are separate. The 3 recalcitrant occupiers are harming their own interests as much as anyone else’s.

Reply to the comment left by “David Price” at “15/07/2016 – 12:57“:

Interesting, why did new owner foot the bill? Surely the debt would have been paid by the sale proceeds? Or were there insufficient funds?

Reply to the comment left by “Puzzler ” at “16/07/2016 – 09:22“:

Because that was what was in the conditions of the auction sale. The owner was broke, having spent £50,000 arguing over a £1,500 bill, and had no option but to pass the service charges onto the next owner.
I cannot even quote what our middle aged lady barrister said about him, suffice it to say it was not complimentary.

Reply to the comment left by “David Price” at “16/07/2016 – 09:51“:

Was his name Richard?!

Reply to the comment left by “Nick Pope” at “16/07/2016 – 10:49“:

I feel that I am missing the hidden meaning in your question but the simple answer is no.

Reply to the comment left by “David Price” at “16/07/2016 – 12:44“:

Contraction of Richard is Dick!