Case Law

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 leaseholder sought to argue that the service charges incurred prior to 1997 were now barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 1980, as they had not been demanded within 6 years. The LVT followed the earlier decision in Re St Andrews Square and agreed that the Limitation Act 1980 did apply to service charge cases. In this case, as the service charges were stated in the lease to be payable as rent, they had to be demanded within 6 years or being incurred or would be time-barred. The LVT then found that t

It had been slow to provide documentation to the applicant. It failed to attend the hearing, despite stating that it would be represented. It failed to produce a trial bundle, despite promising to do so. It failed to produce any substantive documentation to support its claim. Unsurprisingly, the leaseholders were successful in their claim. The LVT found that the defendant could be said to have acted frivolously, vexatious or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings. However, it declined

In 1997 the tenants were awarded damages against the defendant for disrepair to the building. The defendant did not honour this judgment but went into liquidation. The claimant company was established by the tenants and the freehold was transferred to the claimant company. The defendant then refused to pay any service charges. Other tenants did similarly and the building fell further into disrepair. The Claimant company took the defendant to court for failure to pay service charges. The defendant counter

a) the use of comparable transaction evidence; b) the analysis of settlement evidence; c) the use of relativity charts; d) the use of figures extracted from previous LVT and Lands Tribunal cases. These methods all have severe limitations. The Lands Tribunal has now ruled on the correct approach to valuation. c There is no binding convention to establish that a fixed and constant deferment rate of 6% should be universally used. The deferment rate in each case must be considered with reference to the facts

The question of s20C and what, if any, cost protection the leaseholders were entitled to was all that remained in dispute. The leaseholders argued that, if their landlord had disclosed his legal advice to them, they would not have mounted their challenge. The LVT agreed with the landlord that such documents were subject to legal privilege. It was not unreasonable to refuse to waive that privilege and it would not criticise the landlord for not doing so. The LVT refused to make an order under s20C, becaus

The LVT agreed with the applicants that it was inappropriate for a management company to vote not to fulfil its obligations. As a matter of law, it was not open to the lessees to agree that the company need not observe its obligations towards all the lessees under the lease. A new manager was therefore appointed for 3 years. Analysis This decision makes two important points. Firstly, just as freeholders cannot make profit from service charges, nor can leaseholders seek to keep their service charges artif

The company served notice on the landlord proposing to purchase the freehold of the building for £210. The landlord did not dispute the right to enfranchise but served a counter-notice, proposing a price of £130,000. The company applied to the county court for a declaration that the counter-notice was invalid on the ground that the price proposed was unrealistically high. The county court dismissed the claim and the company appealed to the Court of Appeal. Analysis To exercise the right of collective enf

The leaseholder challenged these as being unreasonable administration charges. The LVT agreed, holding that the definition of “administration charge” was wide enough to cover the items in dispute. It reduced the surveyors fee and rejected completely the attempt to increase the ground rent. It made clear that landlords were not permitted to use the requirement that they give permission for works as a means of securing a financial advantage. Analysis Since being given jurisdiction to hear administration cha

The Defendant authorised those works to go ahead and purported merely to vary the existing contract. It did not go through the s20 consultation process for these further works. The LVT held that the variation amounted to qualifying works within the meaning of s20 and disallowed the costs of those works for non-compliance. Analysis The interplay between s20 consultation requirements and undertaking further works as part of an existing contract is a common source of dispute in service charge cases and diffe

Gaingold opposed this on the basis that more than 25% of the internal floor space was used for non-residential purposes and, as such, the property was exempt from the RTM process. The LVT resolved the dispute in favour of the RTM company, but granted permission to appeal, recognising that there was an important point of statutory interpretation in dispute. The property contained 13 self contained residential apartments, a retail unit and a restaurant. The restaurant was the key unit in this dispute, as it

Various works were done by the Defendant to the sewer system. The LVT held that those works would also constitute service charges. The Defendant was liable to pay for the works under the terms of the 1998 transfer. The costs had therefore been “incurred” within the meaning of s18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and could therefore be charged to the leaseholders. Analysis The question of when costs are said to be “incurred” and who incurs them is another of the thorny questions of service charge law. This dec