Case Law

Paragraph 88 states: "While we accept the view of the valuers that the deferment rate could require adjustment for location, on the evidence before us we see no justification for making any adjustment to reflect regional or local considerations either generally or in relation to the particular cases before us…" Paragraph 91 states: "As with location, while we do not rule out the possible need to adjust the deferment rate to take account of such matters as obsolescence and condition, we think that it would

The respondent argued that the £4,000 was not an administration charge but, rather, was a charge for consenting to a variation of the lease. The LVT had no hesitation in rejecting that argument – this was the very situation that the introduction of the administration charge jurisdiction was designed to prevent. The LVT had no hesitation in rejecting the claim for the further £4,000. Analysis It is a shame that the LVT brushed over the jurisdictional argument so quickly, as the administration charge juri

In the instant cases, a number of s.125 notices had been served over the course of the negotiations, all of which had different five yearly periods. The LVT found that the first s.125 notice fell to be considered in each case and the appellants challenged this conclusion in the Lands Tribunal. The Lands Tribunal stated that only one s.125 notice should ordinarily be served although it was open to the parties to agree something different. It upheld one notice in relation to each of the properties and calcu

The freeholder argued that there was no proof that everyone had been served. The applicant stated that everyone had indeed been served and produced a letter from the Hampstead Secretarial Bureaux, setting out that a named employee of that company had indeed posted an invitation to all the leaseholders. In the view of the LVT, this was quite sufficient. If the RTM company had asserted that it had served everyone then it was for the freeholder to adduce evidence to show the contrary. There was no evidence

The LVT had disallowed various management fees charged by the appellant, having concluded that there was no power under the lease to charge management fees. The appellant said that it was self-evident that a management fee should be charged ‘ if not, then the leaseholders would be subsidised by the general housing revenue account funds managed by the applicant.

The LVT disagreed. Put simply, the lease obliged the respondent to provide the service and the applicant was correspondingly obliged to pay it. The cost was not unreasonable and the decision to utilise such a service was backed by the Housing Corporation. Analysis The reference to the Housing Corporation guidance is interesting and represents an aspect of the respondents case that often gets overlooked. When considering whether or not an item of work or provision of a service was reasonably incurred, it i

The lease provided for various regulations to be made which the lessees would all obey. Those regulations provided that the floors must be covered with carpet or other such sound-proofing materials and that the lessee must not cause a nuisance or annoyance to other inhabitants. The applicant contended that the respondent had installed laminate / wooden flooring in their flat, with the result that other properties were now experiencing noise nuisance. A determination that a breach of covenant had occurred

The lease provided that a certificate must be provided by a Chartered Accountant prior to any service charges being payable. The respondent simply relied on the Annual Financial Statement. It explained that this was all that was ever produced and it had no intention of changing its accounting procedures. The LVT found that, until the condition precedent was complied with, there was no liability to pay service charges. Analysis An unsurprising result for anyone who is familiar with the legalities of servic

The appellant landlord had contended that those service charges fell outwith the jurisdiction of the LVT and should not be considered. Alternatively, it was an abuse of process to bring the application. The LVT had held that s27A gave it the jurisdiction to consider the payablity of service charges where the application was made on or after 30 September 2003. It was immaterial when the service charges had been demanded. It was also unpersuaded that the leaseholders could be said to have engaged in unreaso

The applicant was a leaseholder of one of the flats and brought the application on behalf of all the members of a residents association. Following negotiations between the parties, the substantive issues were resolved without the need for a hearing. The only issue that remained was the recoverability of “over-spend” costs in 2001, totalling some £52,000. The applicant contended that they were barred by virtue of s.20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in that they fell outside the 18 month period for claiming

During the course of the works, it became clear that the freeholder had insufficient advance payments from leaseholders to enable it to complete the works. It therefore sought a determination under s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that the costs incurred would be recoverable. The LVT determined that the nature and extent of the works, together with their cost, was reasonable. However, the costs of the application to the LVT were not allowed. The LVT took the view that there was an element of

On points (b) and (c), the LVT simply found against the freeholder on the facts. The expert evidence was unclear and, at times, unhelpful and neither party had tendered their expert for cross examination. The LVT had inspected the property itself and had come to its own conclusions. The first issue was more problematic. The LVT accepted that, if the RTM application were to be allowed to succeed, then there would be a small section of the basement which fell outside the scope of the RTM area. However, it f