Can the Freeholder Legally Charge Leaseholders for Communal Repairs?
A closer look at rights, obligations, and shared concerns at Trellick Tower
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only. It is based on residents’ collective understanding of housing and consumer law and does not constitute legal advice. For personalised legal guidance, please consult a qualified solicitor or housing adviser.
Shared Concerns, Shared Responsibilities
At Trellick Tower, residents across the board—tenants and leaseholders alike—are frustrated. The building suffers from water-damaged ceilings, filthy stairwells, slippery lift lobbies, broken fire doors, and neglected entrance areas. It’s a daily experience of decline. Something has to change.
But the topic of repairs often sparks anxiety, especially for leaseholders.
“We already pay service charges—will we now be hit with huge bills?”
This fear is not abstract. In the past, leaseholders have faced charges as high as £90,000 to £150,000 for major works. Those experiences have left many cautious, anxious, or resistant to further improvements—no matter how urgently needed.
On the other hand, tenants—who contribute rent and service charges weekly—ask:
“Why are we paying so much if nothing gets fixed?”
It's a fair question. And it highlights the deeper issue: This shouldn’t be a conflict between leaseholders and tenants. The real question is why the freeholder—RBKC—is not adequately reinvesting the millions it collects into this building.
What Social Landlords Are Expected to Do
Social landlords like RBKC are not-for-profit providers. They operate under affordable housing rules, including obligations to maintain homes in good repair, ensure safety, and act transparently. In fact:
Rent and service charges collected from tenants are meant to be ringfenced for managing and maintaining council-owned housing stock.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires communal repairs and maintenance to be handled as part of the landlord’s core obligations, not passed down wholesale to leaseholders.
The greater share of responsibility falls to the freeholder when managing social housing, as the expectation is not to extract profit, but to provide safe, decent, and affordable homes.
This means that leaseholders should not be disproportionately burdened, especially where:
Repairs are the result of neglect,
Proper consultation hasn’t occurred, or
The council is already receiving substantial revenue from rents and service charges.
Millions In, Millions Out: The Case for Reinvestment
To be fair, RBKC has made significant past investments at Trellick Tower, including:
Over £6 million on lift upgrades
Around £10 million on scaffolding, window replacements, and balcony work
Tenant kitchen and bathroom refurbishments in many flats
These works were substantial and costly. But they were also long overdue, and despite them, much of the communal fabric of the building remains in disrepair—dirty walls, degraded flooring, water damage, electrical hazards, and unusable shared spaces like the concierge room and clubroom.
What’s left to do now is not on the same financial scale, but it would make a huge difference to daily life. Repainting, restoring floors, fixing lighting, and basic health-and-safety upgrades are not luxury items. They are the legal minimum.
Meanwhile, Trellick Tower has generated tens of millions in income over the years. Based on current figures we estimate:
Around £1.58 million/year in rent from 174 tenanted flats
Over £429,000/year in service charges from 217 flats
An additional £100,000+ per year from leaseholders in repair and insurance contributions
In total, the building brings in over £2.1 million annually. Over 20 years, that's more than £40 million in revenue, without accounting for inflation.
And let’s not forget: when Trellick Tower was built in the 1970s, the entire construction cost was around £2.5 million. Adjusted for today's value of money, that’s around £42 million. But if RBKC were to demolish and rebuild a similar tower now, with 217 homes, it would cost an estimated £700 million. In other words:
Trellick Tower is one of RBKC’s most valuable assets. Preserving it is not just a duty - it’s an economic imperative.
It’s also a Grade II* listed building of architectural significance. Yet it is being allowed to decay. The residents and staff, who live and work here every day, deserve better. They deserve basic safety, dignity, and functionality, not a slow slide into dereliction.
Can the Freeholder Legally Charge Leaseholders?
Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, RBKC can legally charge leaseholders for communal repairs and services if the following conditions are met:
The lease allows it
Most leases at Trellick do include such provisions.The charges are reasonable
Costs must reflect the real, reasonable price of the works and must be fairly allocated.Proper consultation is carried out
For major works costing over £250 per leaseholder, a Section 20 consultation is legally required. If it isn’t done, leaseholders cannot be made to pay beyond that cap.
🚨 When Leaseholders Should Not Be Charged
However, legal rights exist to protect leaseholders from unfair, disproportionate costs. Charges may be legally challengeable when:
The repairs are needed due to RBKC’s long-term neglect
Proper consultation has not taken place
The work is of poor quality or incomplete
Charges are not transparently explained or broken down
The service billed for (cleaning, lighting, concierge, etc.) is visibly not delivered
Leaseholders can take disputes to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which has the power to:
Cap or invalidate unreasonable charges
Enforce repair responsibilities
Order compensation in some cases
A Way Forward - Together
Trellick Tower doesn’t need another conflict between RBKC, leaseholders and tenants. It needs leadership, transparency, and investment from the freeholder. The repairs still needed are not just cosmetic—they are legal obligations under housing, workplace safety, and disability access law.
Tenants want to see something for the money they pay. Leaseholders want protection from disproportionate costs. Both want the same thing: a safe, well-maintained home.
Let’s demand that RBKC:
Reinvests a fair portion of its income
Prioritises urgent but affordable repairs
Consults residents transparently
Treat Trellick as the historic and community asset that it is
Because this isn’t just a concrete tower. It’s home.
