Case Law

The respondents applied to the LVT for an appointment of a manager who would, amongst other things, discharge the obligations of the freeholder as regards the common parts. The LVT allowed the application and the claimant appealed, contending that the LVT had no jurisdiction to appoint a manager in respect of property which was not demised under a lease. The appeal was dismissed. The power to appoint a manager under Part 2 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was not limited in the manner contended for. The LVT c

The applicants contended that the absence of an express power to make such a charge under the lease was fatal to the respondent’s case and that general clauses conferring “management” powers and functions was insufficiently precise for these purposes. The respondents argued that “management” should be given a broad interpretation, as it had in other areas of law, particularly in social housing cases. The LVT found for the applicants. The lease between the parties was a binding contractual agreement. No re

The RTM company had served a Notice of Invitation on all the qualifying tenants in April 2006. This was followed, in January 2007, by the service of the claim notice on the respondent. The respondent served a counter-notice, contending that the applicant was not entitled to exercise the right to manage on the grounds that: a) the members of the RTM company did not exceed the necessary majority (ie, half the flats within the building); b) not every qualifying tenant had been served with the Notice of Invi

The LVT did not accept that the approach was unfair. It had some similarity with the old “rateable value” apportionment and there was a logic to the system. However, the LVT did find that some of the service charges were not “reasonable”, within the meaning of s.19 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It declined, however, to set these off against the outstanding service charges, holding that it had no power to do so. Analysis The LVT is simply wrong on the power to set-off service charges. The Lands Tribunal d

The Lands Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the LVTs decision. It made clear that there was a distinction between a jurisdiction to consider whether or not a breach had been waived (such as by estoppel) and whether or not the right to forfeit a lease had been waived. The former was properly open to the LVT to determine, whereas the latter was not. It drew a comparison with the power under s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine whether or not a service charge was payable. If a leaseholder

In July 2003, PMCL issued proceedings in the county court for the recovery of service charges. These were then transferred to the LVT, which, in July 2004, found for PMCL and determined that some £3,251.35 was payable in service charges for the years 2000-2003. Mr Ustimekno appealed, unsuccessfully, to the Lands Tribunal. The matter was than remitted to the county court which, in July 2006, entered judgment for the outstanding service charges, plus interest. A claim for the costs of the proceedings was al

Since about 2004, the tenant of the top-floor flat had been engaging in anti-social behaviour, including making loud music and the like. The applicant landlord had written to the respondent leaseholder, asking them to take action to abate the nuisance caused by their tenant. There was a period of good behaviour but, in about March 2005, the problems started again. The landlord again wrote to the leaseholders and again there was a slight improvement. However, by 2007, the problems were once again as bad as

The LVT agreed that the building did not seem to qualify for the right to manage. In particular, if one applied s.72(3) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, the area which would be vertically severed would indeed exclude the car parking spaces. However, as these made up only some two per cent of the property, the LVT concluded that they were not material and allowed the right to manage. The freeholder appealed to the Lands Tribunal, where it was successful. The Lands Tribunal agreed that, when consid

The appellant (Islington) was the freeholder of a building and estate, in respect of which the respondent was a leaseholder of one of the flats. She was liable to pay service charges in respect of the building and the estate.

Sinclair Gardens were the freehold owner of blocks of flats at Poets Chase, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. The blocks of flats were premises to which Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 applied. In December 2005, the tenants served a notice under s.13 of the 1993 Act, purporting to commence the enfranchisement process.

However, the manager had plainly taken considerable steps to improve his management of the property between the decision and the consideration of the application to appoint a manager. He had suffered financially and made changes to his management practice to address the concerns and criticisms of the LVT. Despite the improvements, the LVT had concerns about his continued management of the property and, in particular, the degree of independent judgment which he intended to exercise. It went on to appoint

The Secretary of State has, by regulation, brought converted blocks of flats within the scope of the HMO legislation, with effect from October 1 2007.