Case Law

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

It was quite clear that the proposed charges were not contemplated in the lease and, as there was no contractual obligation to pay these charges, they were neither payable nor reasonable. Analysis The failure to read the lease is probably one of the most common errors made by both freeholders and leaseholders.  To put it simply, if a charge is not clearly allowed for under the lease, then a leaseholder cannot be obliged to pay it, even if the freeholder has already incurred costs.  The freeholder in this

In 2004, the Law Commission published a report (also called “Termination of Tenancies for Tenant Default”) in which it was stated that the law of forfeiture was complex, lacking in coherence and with the potential to lead to great injustice. This is the final version of the Law Commission’s recommendations and includes a draft Bill, which, if enacted, would abolish the law of forfeiture. The proposed new law would require a landlord to (a) identify a default by the tenant and (b) give an explanatory state

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

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

He failed to comply, finally serving his evidence some 6 days late. The matter was set down for determination as to whether or not it should be struck out. The applicant, by this stage represented by Counsel, accepted that he had not complied with the various Directions, but argued that the LVT was designed with the express intention of allowing unrepresented persons to bring cases; in effect the LVT should accept that people will sometimes just get it wrong. There was no prejudice to the respondent in th

These works were duly carried out and the freeholder sought to recover the costs from the leaseholders. The leaseholders objected these works were not recoverable as they were an improvement, rather than a repair. The freeholder maintained that the works were repairs. The LVT found for the leaseholders. The works had been necessitated not because of any inherent defects in the property, but simply in order to comply with the relevant HSE requirements. The works were additional to the main structure and,

The LVT dealt with the matter by simply dispensing with service of the s.20 notice. Analysis This was a sensible and practical solution. Leaseholders cannot use non-compliance with the s.20 notice requirements as a way of securing a windfall. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the LVT sidestepped the more interesting question, namely whether Camden was obliged to re-serve the s.20 notice after it was returned.

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 tenant contended that the phrase meant something other than “equal division.” Had the draftsman wanted to produce an “equal division” then he would have used those words. The LVT agreed. The property contained six similar sized flats and three larger ones. A “proportionate share” was more appropriately determined by floor area and ordered the service charges to be recalculated on this basis. Analysis Although the LVT’s decision is short on reasoning, the conclusion must be correct. If a party is to pa