Graham Wrigley v Landchance Property Management Ltd

<p>a) some had been demanded more than six years ago and as such were time barred;<br> b) the demands failed to comply with ss.47 and 48, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and / or had not been served at all.<br><br> The LVT found, amongst other things, that:<br> a) the service charges that had been demanded more than six years ago were not statute barred, because the charges were not rent but rather arose under the lease – and as such were a speciality as a deed – and the limitation period was 12 years;<br> b) as a matter of fact the service charge demands had been served on the property, which was Mr Wrigley’s last known address;<br> c) the demands had not complied with ss.47 or 48.<br><br> Mr Wrigley appealed unsuccessfully to the Upper Tribunal. The limitation point was academic because on the LVT’s own findings the demands had not become payable because they failed to comply with ss.47 or 48. However, had the demands been valid the limitation period would have been six years because the lease provided that service charges were to be reserved as rent.<br><br> The LVT had been entitled to find that Landchance had properly served the service charge demands by leaving them in the communal area of the building, in which the flat was situated, where post was collected.</p><p>This analysis was provided by Sam Madge-Wyld from&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ardenchambers.com">Arden Chambers.</a>&nbsp;You can view a full list of our contributors on the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.newsontheblock.com/lvt">LVT Bulletin homepage.</a></p>