Case Law

The Respondent contended that, a previous LVT decision (Woolwich Dockyard v London Borough of Greenwich LVTP/SC/028/044/98) had authorized a 20% management fee. The LVT explained that the size of a management fee would depend on the circumstances and, in particular, the amount of time and effort spent on managing the property. In this case, a charge of 15% of the total costs was reasonable. Analysis This is hardly a surprising decision, but makes the point that cases on such fact-specific points as “reaso

T further argued that the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Sch.12 prevented S from recovering its costs. It was held that, to the extent that there were LVT decisions to the contrary, they were wrong. Schedule 12 of the Act did not preclude the recovery of legal costs. Analysis This was an issue which had been troubling lawyers since the 2002 Act came into effect. Schedule 12 appeared to prohibit any costs recovery at all. Indeed, one LVT had come to that conclusion. The more sensible approach was

The lease provided that they had to pay a “reasonable and proper proportion” of the relevant costs “subject to… the principles of good estate management”.  Based on this clause, the landlords had previously charged the service charges with reference to floor area of each flat. It proposed to change to a system whereby the charges would be split equally between all the properties. The LVT was asked to adjudicate between these two apportionment mechanisms. The first issue was whether or not this was a matte

Unfortunately, they had failed to follow the correct consultation process and had been advised by Counsel that they would have to start the process again. It was estimated that this delay would increase costs by 6%. Analysis The LVT agreed with the applicant that the spirit, if not the letter of s.20 had been complied with. The leaseholders had been informed, asked to comment and, most importantly, agreed with the proposed course of action. Whilst an administrative error in itself would not be sufficient

They were already purchasing gas from their ideal supplier under an existing contract. However, they wanted to extend that contract for a further two years and feared that complying with the requirements of s20 would jeopardise their ability to agree the contract extension in a timeous manner. The landlord had given notice of its intention to apply for dispensation by 4 separate adverts in local papers. The LVT was critical of the steps taken by the landlord to inform the tenants of the process and felt t

It was held that premises used for mixed residential and retail purposes could still constitute a house for the purpose of the enfranchisement legislation. With the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Parliament had removed the residence requirement and must have been taken to understand that this would allow companies to apply for enfranchisement. Analysis This has huge potential consequences. Freeholders could now find their commercial tenants attempting to acquire their properties at a fraction of

Ealing started that it would be impossible to provide much of the information required by the consultation regulations. In particular, references to unit or daily rates would be meaningless, as would estimated contributions or total expenditure under the agreements. The framework agreement would operate by selecting a number of agencies who would, in effect, create a small market by bidding for the works each time they needed to be done. It was only once Ealing had identified works and put them out to the

In August 2000, the Appellant housing trust acquired from Richmond-upon-Thames LBC, by means of an LSVT, the freehold of a housing estate in Brick Farm Close, including the two blocks of flats in question. Two-thirds of the tenants in the blocks occupied under long leases for 125 years, having exercised the right to buy under Housing Act 1985; the other residents occupied their flats under assured tenancies. A majority of the long leaseholders wished to enfranchise, to acquire the freehold of the block. A

The contracts were awarded after an e-tendering process. The applicant wanted to avoid the usual consultation process as it feared that electricity prices would fluctuate too much during this period and would render the consultation process meaningless. The applicant had consulted the Leaseholders Forum and placed adverts in the local newspaper. The LVT concluded that it would be reasonable to dispense with the consultation process. 001

The LVT found that the respondent had failed to supply information to the applicant in a timely and helpful manner. The applicant was forced to make the application and, although it was settled without the need for an order from the LVT, the respondent should reimburse the applicant his fees. However, no other costs order would be made. The respondent could not be said to have acted “unreasonably.” In order to satisfy that test, more than inefficiency and poor communication would need to be shown. 001

In February 2005, the contract was terminated by the contractor. Enfield found themselves in a difficult position. To re-tender the contract would take at least 6 months and, clearly, works needed to be completed in that time. Ultimately, it decided to offer the contract to the company who had come second on the original tendering process. Enfield then applied for dispensation in respect of this second contract. The LVT refused to grant dispensation. It was convinced that there was insufficient time for a