News on the Block

Capping Leaseholders Charges

The Department of Communities and Local Government has declined to cap these bills, but has decided to introduce laws to help local authorities offer flexible loans to leaseholders, and to increase the funding and role of the Leasehold Advisory Service.

Service Charges: Value for Money?

The Housing Corporation has issued guidance in relation to registered social landlords and the consultation process and collection of service charges. It is intended to draw together a number of common experiences faced by leaseholders and tenants and sets out best practice for landlords. It is intended to be an accessible guide and to promote efficiency across the RSL sector, although there is no reason why other landlords could not find useful tips from the guidance.

Redcliffe Close -v- Lancaster

The property was managed by the claimant management company. Its directors were all leaseholders. A dispute arose with the freeholder and the management company appointed a third party to act as their agent in negotiations with the freeholder.

London Area Procurement Network

Over 80 leaseholders across the various local authorities opposed this application. The leaseholders contended that the s.20 consultation requirements represented an important safeguard of their rights. They wanted to be able to meaningfully participate in the selection and nomination of contractors and would lose this right if the application were granted. There was considerable scepticism about the quality of works and supervision provided by the applicants. The LVT refused the application for dispensa

Brown's Operating System Services Ltd v Southwark Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation

The landlord was the owner of a building in London. In the early 1980s it was let to a company and converted into five business units. The leaseholder paid service charges each year on a scale in excess of what was normally required so as to build up a surplus to cover future expenditure.

Code of Practice (Private Retirement Housing) (Wales) Order

St Modwen Developments (Edmonton) Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd

A dispute arose between the parties as to the payment of service charges and a 10% management fee. It was accepted that references to “the Council” had to be read as references to the current freeholder, but it was said that references to the “Borough Treasurer” could not be read as being equivalent to any person in the claimant company and, in particular, the Finance Director. The Court agreed. The lease did not provide for a finance director to play the role of the Borough Treasurer. The Borough Treasu

Tax Breaks on Sinking Funds

Hughes -v- Rochdale Boroughwide Housing

Analysis The importance of a clear paper trail cannot be overstated. When the council could not provide documentary evidence that it had considered – and rejected – alternative options, the LVT had no option but to draw adverse inferences from the absence of evidence.

Leaseholders of Cooks Road and others v London Borough of Southwark

Analysis It is clear, as the LVT accepted, that counter-claims for damages for breach of covenant by a landlord are matters which the LVT can determine. In Continental Property Ventures v White and White the Lands Tribunal expressly confirmed that this was the case. However – the Lands Tribunal also expressed doubts about whether or not the LVT is the most appropriate forum for the determination of such questions. It is not all together clear that this is correct. If a judicial body has jurisdiction to

Report of the Social Sector Working Party

The report covers a wide range of issues of relevance to those working in leasehold property and is essential reading. It is proposed that there should be a cap on the service charge bills arising from the Decent Homes standard and the Government should pay any necessary top up, however, a number of wider reforms are proposed: (a) it is suggested that there should be consideration given to a separate legislative regime for private sector landlords; (b) there should be substantial reform to the s.20 cons

Dallas and others v Gleeson Homes

This was a “normal” service charge dispute, but one particular point does merit attention. The applicant sought to invite the LVT to determine questions which had not been included on the application form. The respondent contended that the application was limited to the matters specified on the form and the questions posed as part of the Directions.
The LVT disagreed – the jurisdiction to determine cases came from the terms of s.19 and s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Directions were made in order to assist with the process but did not, in any way, limit the jurisdiction of the LVT. The application was allowed to proceed.
Analysis
Presumably the LVT would agree, however, that parties cannot simply spring new arguments on each other at the last minute, even if those argument might come within the scope of s.19 or s.27A.

Case Law

Capping Leaseholders Charges

Service Charges: Value for Money?

Redcliffe Close -v- Lancaster

London Area Procurement Network

Brown's Operating System Services Ltd v Southwark Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation

Code of Practice (Private Retirement Housing) (Wales) Order

St Modwen Developments (Edmonton) Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd

Tax Breaks on Sinking Funds

Hughes -v- Rochdale Boroughwide Housing

Leaseholders of Cooks Road and others v London Borough of Southwark

Report of the Social Sector Working Party

Dallas and others v Gleeson Homes

Report a Case

Case Law Editorial Team

Editor's Choice

Apartment Adviser Awards 2025 - Shortlist Announcement

#FireCompartmentationAwarenessWeek: Join the Conversation

Ark Workplace Risk & Livingcity secure one of UK’s first BACs

Octopus supercharges social housing with new ‘Tenant Power’ tariff

Knowledge Bank: EV Charging for Multi-Unit Buildings: Insurance, Installation, Maintenance

Issue 136 Online Now