Oakfern v Ruddy

<p> The tenant applied to the LVT under s27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a determination that certain of the freeholders costs had been unreasonably incurred. <br> The tenant was not the direct tenant of the freeholder, but was the tenant under an intermediate lease. There was, therefore, no landlord-tenant relationship between the two parties.<br> At the LVT, the freeholder objected that the LVT lacked jurisdiction. It contended that its costs were not “service charges” as against the tenant and, in any event, the LVT had no jurisdiction where there was no landlord-tenant relationship. The LVT rejected both submissions.<br> On appeal to the Lands Tribunal, the LVT’s reasoning was upheld. The paying undertenant should be able to make an application against either his superior landlord or the mesne landlord. The mesne landlord may well have no interest in dealing with the dispute, and may well have no knowledge of the items of work which give rise to the dispute. <br> The Lands Tribunal was particularly influenced by the wording of s27A. The wording of s27A does not include any restriction on who may apply to the LVT for a determination of service charges, rather, it simply provides that “an application may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal”. To the extent that third parties with no real interest in the dispute might abuse this power, the Lands Tribunal was confident that such abuse could be prevented by the use of Regulation 11 of the LVT’s Procedural Regulations.<br> Analysis<br> This is one of a number of decisions of the Lands Tribunal included in this edition of the LVT Bulletin, all of which show the Lands Tribunal’s tendency to interpret the legislation concerning the LVT’s jurisdiction in the widest possible manner.<br> 005 </p>