Robert Bowker

Facts

The RTM company gave notice to acquire the right to manage. The landlord served a counter-notice. The counter-notice provided the landlord’s solicitors’ address as the address for service of future communications in relation to the subject matter of the notice and any further notice under Chapter 1 Part II of CLRA 2002. That claim was not pursued by the RTM company.

Facts

Tenants of several flats exercised the right to a new lease pursuant to Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the LRHUDA 1993. The parties agreed the premium but did not agree the costs payable to the landlord pursuant to section 60(1) of the 1993 Act. The landlord engaged an in-house solicitor.

Summary

The FTT erred in determining the premium payable for a new lease under the 1993 Act.

Summary

The Court of Appeal (McFarlane, Lewison and McCombe LLJ) upheld the trial judge’s decision, on a summary judgment application by the freeholder, that it had not contravened section 4(3) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 because the lack of a handrail and the steepness of stairs in the common parts, although a breach of planning regulations, were not a breach of the repair covenants in the lease and, therefore, not “relevant defect”.

Summary

The landlord appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s determination of the premium payable for the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.