Commentary on Sections Rule 3 – matters on which scheme decisions may be made
153.Rule 3.1 gives a list of the subjects on which scheme decisions can be made. Most scheme decisions are about maintenance and repairs and under rule 3.1(a) owners can decide to carry out maintenance to any part of scheme property. Owners may be able to arrange for an inspection of scheme property to determine whether or to what extent maintenance is required (rule 3.1(b)). A scheme decision can be made to appoint a manager or factor (rule 3.1(c)) and to delegate to that manager any of the owners’ powers (rule 3.1(d)).
154.Scheme decisions can also be made to:
	arrange for a common insurance policy for the tenement (rule 3.1(e));
	install a system enabling entry to the tenement to be controlled from each flat (rule 3.1(f));
	determine that an owner is not required to pay a share (rule 3.1(g));
	authorise any maintenance of scheme property already carried out (whether by an owner, manager or factor) (rule 3.1(h)); and
	modify or revoke any scheme decision (rule 3.1(i)).
155.If owners have made a scheme decision (either under the provisions of their title deeds or under rule 3.1) to carry out maintenance, rule 3.2 allows owners to make decisions to instruct or carry out maintenance or to appoint a manager to arrange for this. To allow for the fact that tradesmen may be unwilling to start work unless money has already been collected and deposited, each owner may be required to deposit money in advance by a date which the owners decide, subject to rule 3.3. This will be the owner’s apportioned share of a reasonable estimate of the costs of the maintenance.
156.Unless the title deeds enable the owners to make decisions on other subjects, scheme decisions are restricted to those subjects listed in rule 3.1.
157.Rule 3.3 deals with decisions made under rule 3.2(c) which require owners to deposit a sum of money. The two tier arrangement found in rule 3.3 will allow owners to hand over small sums of money without the safeguards applying. Under paragraph (a), if the sum of money required to be deposited is less than £100, then the safeguards found in rule 3.4 will not apply. Rule 3.3(b) contains a £200 threshold so as to ensure that owners do not have to risk handing over more than £200 in any year without the protection of having the money placed in a maintenance account. Rule 3.3(b) may kick in, however, where a small sum – perhaps only required for stair cleaning – pushes the total amount over the £200 limit. The previous sums demanded in that year may already be held in a maintenance account, and in that case the only sum at risk is the small amount being demanded. Any sums which have already been placed in a maintenance account are therefore excluded from the £200 threshold.
158.Rule 3.4 deals with procedures where scheme decisions made under rule 3.2(c) require, under rule 3.3, the deposit of sums. It deals with the collection and deposit of funds, which must be paid into a “maintenance account”. The owners can authorise others to operate the maintenance account on their behalf. This rule provides safeguards for owners who may be required to hand over considerable amounts of money as a result of a single decision or a number of decisions made by the owners over a 12 month period.
159.Paragraph (f) provides that the notice to be given under rule 3.3 may specify a “refund date” on which the sums deposited would be repayable to the depositors if maintenance has not been commenced by that date. If the notice does not state a “refund date” then rule 3.4(g)(i)(B) provides the default rule. Owners will be able to request repayment if the work does not commence before the refund date or, if no refund date is given, within 28 days of the proposed date of commencement.
160.Rule 3.5 will prevent abuse of rule 3.1(f). An owner’s vote will not be counted towards a scheme decision if it is used to excuse him or her from payment under rule 3.1(f). This rule is intended to excuse from payment those who are genuinely unable to meet the financial demand. Without rule 3.5, there would be a risk that rule 3.1(f) could be abused particularly in circumstances where one owner owns a majority of flats in a tenement