This month's LVT cast - Penny Court, Walsall, West Midlands

During the course of the works, it became clear that the freeholder had insufficient advance payments from leaseholders to enable it to complete the works. It therefore sought a determination under s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that the costs incurred would be recoverable.

The LVT determined that the nature and extent of the works, together with their cost, was reasonable. However, the costs of the application to the LVT were not allowed. The LVT took the view that there was an element of self-interest in the freeholder’s application and reduced the costs that were recoverable accordingly.

The Lands Tribunal disagreed with this approach. The freeholder was perfectly justified in making the application and had been entirely successful. There was no reason for thinking that it should not be able to recover its costs in those circumstances.

Analysis:

This must be right. A freeholder who brings an application and is successful should be entitled to recover his costs. The actions of the freeholder in this case were both appropriate and responsible. The mere fact that the freeholder may achieve some personal benefit in the long term is no reason to prevent recovery in any particular case.