Case Law

 It was an abuse of process to lodge an application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant 1985 at the LVT when the same service charges were already the subject of county court proceedings.

The LVT has jurisdiction to order a variation of leases to take effect from a date prior to the LVT’s decision and prior to the application to vary.

The LVT had erred in failing to consider whether the tenants’ ability to afford the works when determining that the works were reasonably incurred. 

The tenant was entitled to an order for the furnishing of service charge accounts.  Contrary to the landlord’s contention, the lease did not require “full accounts”, i.e. accounts prepared by accountants showing accruals, balances carried forward and contributions payable to and held in a reserve fund, to be provided.    

Having withdrawn an express challenge to the validity of a parking scheme in county court claim for the refund of clamping fees, the respondent tenant was estopped from challenging the legitimacy of parking restrictions in LVT proceedings and was liable to pay the administration charges for parking in breach of the parking regulations made under his lease. 

The Upper Tribunal, in refusing permission to appeal from a decision of a leasehold valuation tribunal, had not erred in concluding that there had been no substantial procedural defect in an alleged failure to serve notices on the claimant leaseholder at what he said was his proper address.

The appellant landlord was not entitled to recover £4,039.26 from the respondent towards the cost of major works because it had billed the service charges for the major works separately from more routine recurring service charges and, accordingly, it had not followed the terms of the lease. 

(1) There is no requirement as to what address the landlord must give in a s.20 notice as the address to which the tenant may send observations; (2) While there is no specified time limit for the service of a s.20 notice, the relevant time periods for the work to be undertaken is months rather than years; the passage of time between 2007 and 2009, combined with the change in the works meant that the 2007 notice was invalid for the purpose of works carried out in 2009; 

The consultation requirements in respect of qualifying long term agreements (“QLTAs”) do not apply to agreements entered into in relation to buildings which have not yet been constructed or which are not let at the time of the agreement.

The Supreme Court has handed down an addendum judgement on the form of order; the liability to pay the (tenants’ and the landlord’s) costs of the hearing regarding compliance with the consultation requirements; the interaction between conditions relating to costs and an order pursuant to s.20C; and the date dispensation takes effect.

The local authority landlord was entitled to recover indirect costs, described as ‘overhead costs’, such as staff costs and the cost of accommodation in arranging and managing works, as such costs fell within the provision “all costs of or incidental to [the carrying out and provision of various works and services]”.

The Upper Tribunal (Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President) held that the omission of the letters "RTM" in the name of a company which otherwise satisfied the requirements of s.73 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was not fatal to the company's status as a right to manage company.