Case Law

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 parties agreed the terms of a lease extension, save for one clause. The applicant wanted to insert a clause whereby he would be able to require the respondent to enforce the covenants contained in other leases against other leaseholders, subject to him meeting the costs of the same. The respondent resisted this clause and the LVT declined to order it be included. The argument focused on s.57(6) Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 which provides that the parties “… may require

Analysis It is becoming increasingly obvious that, if an LVT is to be persuaded to dispense with the consultation requirements, it must be convinced either that an actual emergency has arisen or that the applicant has done all that it possibly can to comply with the consultation requirements. It is not willing to dispense with the consultation requirements merely on the basis of convenience.

She was unable to comply immediately and sought an extension of time. The respondent objected and asked that the claim be struck out or some sort of “unless” order be made. The LVT informed the parties that it was minded to dismiss the application unless the applicant complied with the directions. A hearing was listed. The LVT noted that some 4 ½ months had passed since the directions were first given. Despite this, she was given one further opportunity to particularise her case. She submitted a Scott Sc

The respondents contended that the applicant had no standing to bring these proceedings, and that it should have been an occupant under the sub-underlease bringing the proceedings. It argued that a mesne landlord could not bring proceedings against a second mesne landlord. The respondent also argued that the LVT only had jurisdiction to determine matters which had arisen after the applicant had become a party to the lease. Finally, the respondent argued that there had been previous proceedings in respec

It is worth setting out the entirety of the prescribed information, which must be set out in a legible typewritten or printed form at last 10 point and must be headed “Service Charges – Summary of tenants’ rights and obligations”. (1) This summary, which briefly sets out your rights and obligations in relation to variable service charges, must by law accompany a demand for service charges. Unless a summary is sent to you with a demand, you may withhold the service charge. The summary does not give a full

The respondents challenged their increased service charges. The LVT took the view that, once it became clear that there would be a substantial increase, the appellant was obliged to consider other possibilities. The failure to do so rendered the costs unreasonably incurred and a proportionate reduction was made. The LVT then reduced the amounts payable by 25%. The appellant argued that the LVT had erred by reducing the amounts payable by 25% without having any evidence before it to support this figure. In

In Aggio, the property was a building made up of five flats. The head lessee had sublet three of the flats whilst two remained empty. The head lessee sought to extend the leases on the two vacant flats. In 26 Cadogan Square Ltd, the property was a five-storey building, held on a long lease. Three floors comprised a single flat, which was let as an assured shorthold tenancy, whilst the remainder was sublet as an office. As with Aggio, the head lessee sought to extend the lease on the flat. The Court of Ap

The case was concerned with a number of leasehold properties purchased under the Right to Buy legislation. Whilst the majority of the leaseholders had clauses in their leases obliging them to pay for repairs and improvements, some did not. The LVT found that, as the windows were capable of repair, their replacement constituted an improvement. The Council argued that this was too narrow an approach and that one had to consider whether the whole elevation of the building, or at least the fenestration syste

Any demand for an administration charge must be headed “Administration Charges – Summary of tenant’s rights and obligations” and in a typewritten or printed form of at least a point 10 typeface, must contain the following statement: (1) This summary, which briefly sets out your rights and obligations in relation to administration charges, must by law accompany a demand for administration charges. Unless a summary is sent to you with a demand, you may withhold the administration charge. The summary does n

A tenant may withhold payment of service charges which have been demanded and did not have the accompanying prescribed information.

In December 204, the claimant served a notice under s.42 Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, seeking a new lease of the property. The notice was sent to both the freeholder and his agent, but was returned as undelivered from the agents’ address. No counter-notice was received, but the freeholder resisted the claim for a new lease on the basis that the s.42 notice had not been validly served. The Court of Appeal rejected this contention. There was nothing to suggest that the agent had