Communication was decent, but the email responses were excessively long and confusing. We approached this firm for assistance with an ongoing dispute involving a leaseholder regarding subletting, maintenance neglect, Insurance issues and repeated water damage affecting another leaseholder. The situation was further complicated by anti-social behaviour and additional damage caused during ongoing insurance restoration work, all stemming from the leaseholder’s failure to maintain their bathroom properly.
As Freeholders, we are responsible for securing buildings insurance. However, recent events exposed discrepancies in the information provided by the leaseholder regarding insurance risk questions. Just this past week, several major brokerages have refused to quote or provide cover because we cannot answer these questions with certainty. The reason we can't is we are now aware and have evidence to confirm the leaseholders provide mis-information to their own Landlord insurers, therefore, we can't accept what they share at face value any more as incorrect or mis-information could lead to voiding of buildings insurances and or any claims. We sought legal assistance from Mullis Peake to help us navigate this issue and prevent insurance refusals. However, when we received a letter from the other party’s solicitor asserting that we were in breach of our insurance obligations, Mullis Peake refused to respond or defend our position. Their inaction left the other party believing that we were unwilling to take action, as they received no legal reply. Additionally, they incorrectly claimed that new legislation prevents banks and insurers from discriminating against tenants. While that may be true, it does not apply to preventing insurance companies from their legal rights to conduct their risk assessments, which determine whether to offer coverage based on accurate information provided. Given the leaseholder’s inconsistencies in their insurance disclosures to both ourselves and their own insurance company, we have every right to ensure the information provided to us is accurate otherwise, policies and claims could be voided. Despite this, Mullis Peake failed to provide any meaningful advice or support, we were fobbed off, leaving us in a position where we now cannot even obtain a quote for buildings insurance with major brokerages refusing to quote or offer insurance this past week.
If you're dealing with a freeholder, leaseholder insurance dispute and the insurance companies risk profiling criteria, which materially impacts those with a mutual interest in the buildings insurance, I would strongly advise against using this firm. You may end up paying twice or worse still being refused insurance. Their complaints process was just as disappointing, offering little resolution, merely supporting their initial position.