LvT Case Law
Search Case Law Listings
Most Recent Cases
Substantial works of demolition and redevelopment to a building, which at the time may not constitute a “house” within the definition under the LRA 1967 are nonetheless capable of comprising improvements to be disregarded when determining the price a tenant should pay to enfranchise a house, as long as they were carried out by the tenant (or a predecessor) at their expense.
Where the tenant had paid service charges on account in the course of the service charge year, the landlord could not recover a deficit due after the year end in the absence of an accountant’s certificate complying with the terms of the lease
A decision concerning the premium payable for each of three blocks of flats in Eastbourne upon three collective enfranchisement claims and, in particular, the appropriate rate at which to capitalize the ground rent income.
Costs of over £97,000 had been incurred, and were continuing, in mounting a fire safety “waking watch”. This had been implemented following investigation of the external cladding of the building in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster. Such costs were payable by leaseholders under the terms of commonplace covenants and were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.
For the purposes of Section 20B(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) a relevant cost is incurred by an intermediate landlord when that intermediate landlord receives a demand from its own landlord in respect of services provided by it or a superior landlord. A residential tenant’s 18-month limitation period begins to run only when his or her immediate landlord receives a demand incurring the cost, not when the superior landlord providing the service originally incurs its own cost.
In a conflict between a clear scheme of covenants and complimentary service charge machinery, and ambiguous declarations as to the relationship between one of the parties to the lease and a third party, (both contained in the same lease) the scheme takes precedence and is binding on the parties – coherence trumps uncertainty where provisions are in conflict.
The First Tier Tribunal is entitled to rely on an applicant to send its application, but not the FTT’s subsequent decision, to the respondents to that application. Time will not start running for a party to apply for a permission to appeal until the FTT has itself provided a copy of its decision to that party.
- 1 of 10