Exmouth Estate v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

<p> The leaseholders applied for a determination of their service charges for 2002 arising out of a major works scheme to a housing estate. The terms of the lease provided that the lessees were obliged to maintain, repair and renew the windows and doors. The freeholder was obliged to maintain the structure of the building. <br> These clauses were argued to be contradictory. The obligation to maintain the main structure includes an obligation in respect of the windows15.&nbsp;In addition, the properties were Right to Buy leases and, by virtue of s183(2) and 183(3) Housing Act 1985 there was an implied covenant by the landlord to repair the structure and exterior of the flat, including the windows. The question, therefore, was whether the windows were the leaseholders responsibility (as one reading of the lease provided) or the freeholders (as another reading of the lease, taken with the statutorily implied covenants, provided). <br> The LVT accepted the submission of the freeholder that, where there was any ambiguity, the lease should be construed so as to give priority to the obligations implied by statute. <br> Analysis<br> The leaseholders were unrepresented in this case and so it seems the LVT accepted this submission without having the benefit of argument. Regardless of whether or not it is right, it is a timely reminder of the importance of checking for statutorily implied terms, especially when dealing with Right to Buy leases.<br> 007 </p>