Case Law

He applied for a manager to be appointed. The LVT had no hesitation in making the order. It was found as a fact that the landlord had failed to maintain his obligations for at least 14 years and that this had caused considerable hardship to the applicant. In particular, it had prevented him selling his home. The new manager was questioned about his experience and, having been found suitable, was appointed for two years. Analysis Persuading the LVT to appoint a manager can be a difficult process. However,

The applicant was successful in its application and sought an award for costs. The LVT awarded £500 under Schedule 12, Paragraph 10. Analysis If the previous case represented conduct which well deserved punishment in costs, it is hard to see how the LVT thought it was appropriate in this case. The respondent had taken no part in proceedings. On the applicant’s own case she refused to open her door and had last spoken to the applicant’s agents in 2002. Her mental capacity was in doubt. Can it really be sai

Although the LVT made a number of reductions, the significant aspect of the case involved its costs powers. The applicant had been chasing the matter for 6 years and had never received a reply until the application was issued. She asked for costs to cover her travel and correspondence, a figure just over £50. The LVT declined to make this award. In its view the power to award costs to one party or another should only be used where a party was guilty of “considerable moral turpitude or wilful failure to

The tenant remained in the property for 35 months before being compelled to leave for 21 months. The trial judge awarded £20,000 in damages for the first period and £10,000 for the second period. The landlord appealed, contending that there was a top rate of £3,300 per year for such cases and that it was wrong to award damages on the basis of a notional loss of rental value where the property was the tenant’s home and not an investment property. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Whilst there was an unoffici

The LVT confirmed that the applicant in a service charge case must bring forward enough evidence to make out a prima facie case that costs were not reasonably incurred. Only if this is done does the burden transfer to the respondent to show that the cost were, infact, reasonable. The case therefore failed on this point. Analysis It is reassuring to see the LVT correctly interpreting the law on this point. Many LVT’s do not seem to understand that the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Yorkbr

The respondent contended that they were required to do such works in order to bring the properties up to the “Decent Homes” standard required by the Government. The LVT determined that 50% of the costs should be recoverable. The respondent had failed to provide any evidence that the “Decent Homes” standard required this work. The LVT also took into account the fact that, some years before, the leaseholders had effectively gained a windfall when the respondent failed to demand various service charges. Anal

The tendering process was a rapid one, with the result that the applicant could not comply with the s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 process, as the suppliers were not prepared to wait whilst that process was completed. No substantive opposition was received and the LVT therefore granted dispensation from the consultation requirements under s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It did, however, grant the leaseholders the protection of s.20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Analysis Applications for dispensa

The Leasehold Reform Acts provide various mechanisms for the holders of long leases of residential premises to enfranchise their interests by an extension of their leases or the purchase of the freehold. The purchase price in such cases depends on certain assumptions of the amount, which, at the valuation date, the freeholder’s interest might be expected to realise if sold on the open market by a willing seller. The right to receive ground rent has always been treated separately and is calculated by a pro

The flats were let under long leases, which provided for the payment of service charges. In 2002, long leaseholders of two of the flats successfully challenged parts of the claimant's service charge expenditure for the years 1999-2002, and the service charge budget for 2003. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) refused the claimant permission to appeal. The claimant applied to the Lands Tribunal for permission to appeal. The Lands Tribunal refused permission on the basis that there were no reasonable gr

There were over 3,200 respondents, all of who were informed of the case. The applicant wanted to enter into a five year, £132 million partnership project with various contractors to cover repairs and improvement to the relevant properties until 2011. The agreement would cover works needed to meet the “Decent Homes” standard imposed by the Government. The Egan Report, produced by the Government, had recommended partnership agreements on this scale and of this nature. Despite opposition from some leasehold

For the period 2001-2004 the LVT reduced the service charge liability by almost £170,000. The main items were: Management charges – to reflect the poor standard of management, these charges were reduced by around £18,000. The LVT was particularly critical of managing agents who were unfamiliar with the RICS code of practice. Caretaking wages – the amount demanded for the caretaker had increased by almost dramatically since 2001. The LVT found the 2001 wage to be reasonable and, after allowing for

However, the respondent contended that the leaseholders had been aware of the charges when they brought the property and that no complaints had been made about the standard of management. The LVT rejected this argument. If a charge is not payable under the lease then it cannot be considered to be a payable service charge. The fact that the tenant was forewarned of such a charge or had informally agreed to pay it or even that it might be desirable for the service to be provided did not change the contrac