Homeowners told they had 30 days to pay £14,000 each for a new fire exit or face legal action have been given a stay of execution.

A total of 32 leaseholders at Portland House in Sheerness High Street were billed £441,000 between them for the works, needed to meet new safety regulations.

Many said they were having sleepless nights over their inability to find the funds by the October 27 deadline, with some fearing they would be made homeless.

But now the work has been put on hold after one leaseholder put in a legal challenge.

Last Thursday (November 7), homeowners were informed there had been an application for a review of how Azure Property Limited, which manages the block of flats and shops on behalf of Keighley Investments Ltd, had carried out its consultation process.

It will be conducted by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) – a judicial body that handles disputes in specific areas of law including leaseholder disagreements.

However, this review means that there is now a delay in the building of a new fire exit at the rear of the property.

Currently, if there was a blaze in the block, residents would have to go back through the two-storey building to reach the safety of the ground floor and exit which leads onto the High Street.

In a letter seen by KentOnline, Azure said it is “extremely concerned” about the work being held back.

David Ford, a director at the firm, said “We welcome a review by the FTT in order to confirm the work is in order and can proceed, although the subsequent delay is regrettable.

“These are fire safety works recommended by independent specialists and our main priority has to be on completing them as soon as possible.

“Unfortunately, this situation is not unique, as thousands of leaseholders across the country have found themselves in the same situation.

“This has been a lengthy process in which leaseholders have been informed of the potential costs and we would also like to stress again that neither the freeholder nor the managing agent is receiving any of the sums requested.

“We of course respect the potential FTT process but as yet don’t know how long it will take or when/ if it will occur.

“However, due to this, we are not able to provide any further comment until its conclusion.”

The firm said some of the leaseholders had already paid their contributions and it was working with the others to create more flexible payment schedules.

One leaseholder, Georgie Sayers, previously said she feared she would be made homeless because of her inability to pay the bill.

The 44-year-old, who has lived at Portland House for around eight years, tried to apply for a seven-year loan but was turned down.

Since last speaking with KentOnline, days before the money was due, Georgie has helped to form a tenants’ association which had its first meeting on Sunday (November 10).

Previously Azure had advised leaseholders they may be able to add the sum to their mortgages – something one mortgage advisor labelled as “totally unrealistic” and “grossly unfair”.

Mr Ford said he understood it was a “difficult situation for everyone involved” but that it had come from recent regulation and legislation changes.

He added: “We firmly believe that there should be greater government support in this area to help leaseholders across the country who find themselves in this situation, with many buildings not qualifying for funding, as is the unfortunate reality in this case.”

MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Kevin McKenna, said he was “pleased” to see the residents form a tenants association and that he will be watching the case “closely”.

He said: “I’ve reached out to both Azure and residents to better understand the concern at Portland House.

“I also have recently met with Heidi Martin-Barshell, Georgie, and two other residents at the surgery in Sheerness, where I suggested they form a tenant’s association.

“I was really pleased to hear from Heidi, that this group now been formed. The association will be a great way to build a forum that residents can meet in and discuss matters within Portland House, but also to build a sense of community within the building.

“As the case has been put to the FFT, I will not comment on specific details. However, I will be watching closely and if either party wants to get in-touch with me, I invite them to do so.”

First Tier Tribunals explained

While part of the judicial system, tribunals are more informal than regular courts and aim to resolve disputes between parties in a relatively quick and inexpensive way.

They operate in seven specialised areas of law including tax, immigration and asylum, health, welfare, education and social care.

The property chamber is the one which deals with disputes over housing and land and can adjudicate in matters such as appeals over changes to the Land Registry, hikes in rent, leaseholder issues and renters being denied the right to buy their council house.

The process starts with an application being made to the appropriate chamber about the dispute, for which there is usually a fixed fee of £110.

Following a review, if a tribunal is given the go-ahead there is another fixed fee of £220 – this time to pay for a hearing.

During this, the applicant will be able to put forward their case and be questioned by the other party and vice versa.

The purpose of the proceedings is to enable both sides to have their say.

A judge or tribunal panel - legal professionals and specialists in the field - then makes a decision based on the evidence.

These can be delivered at the hearing but are more often provided in writing within six weeks.

If the applicant is unhappy with the decision they have 28 days to appeal to the next tier in the court system, the Upper Tribunal.

They must first secure permission to appeal from the FFT and explain why its decision was wrong. This will cost £242.

In June 2019, residents of the 19-storey Arlington House tower block in Margate successfully challenged the level of service charges being levied by their management company at an FTT.

In that case, a judge said tenants were collectively being charged around £30,000 too much and ordered the firm to slash the level of payments.