News on the Block

Canary Riverside v Schilling

Although the landlord was broadly successful, the LVT refused to allow him to recover his costs and did so for three reasons: (a) the Landlord had not established a contractual entitlement to be paid service charges including the costs in question; (b) recovery was barred by Paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 12 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002; (c) the lease provisions relied on by the Landlord were unenforceable by reason of the provisions of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The Lands Tr

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v Bartley

The problem was that the respondent was the freehold owner of her property. The applicant contended that “a person cannot have the benefit of… essential services without giving consideration in return.” The LVT declined jurisdiction and remitted the matter to the county court. There was no leasehold relationship between the parties and no services charges, as defined by s18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were being charged. It may be the case that the applicant could recover monies for the works in questio

Re: 2-4 Westferry Road, London, E14 8JL

The applicants had already applied to the LVT for the appointment of a manager.
This application had been successful in 1999 and there had been a variation in 2001, re-appointing the same manager until the end of 2005. They applied again to extend his appointment for a second time. The respondent freeholder objected on three grounds; firstly they argued that the Order appointing the manager did not contain any provision enabling it to be extended; secondly they argued that s24(9) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 did not confer on the LVT a jurisdiction to vary an order; finally they argued that it was not just and covenient for the management order to continue.
The LVT rejected these arguments. It held that the absence of an express clause permitting the manager’s appointment to be extended was not fatal. The LVT retained a general discretion to review the appointment of the manager and the terms of his appointment. Secondly, s24(9) permitted the LVT to vary or discharge any order as it felt appropriate. Parliament cannot have intended parties to have to issue a new application, with the associated costs, both financial and in terms of time, every time they wanted simply to preserve the status quo. Finally, it clearly was just and convenient to make the order sought. The managing agents were doing an excellent job and should be permitted to continue to do so.
Analysis
The decision is not particularly surprising, but it is welcome as a confirmation of the commonly accepted position, namely that the LVT is able to vary management orders as it feels appropriate. This must be right. The manager appointed under s24 is a servant of the LVT, not the parties. The LVT must retain powers to deal with him and the terms of his appointment.
006

Melford Park Management Co. Ltd v FHL (Nominees) Ltd

In 2004 the freeholder called upon the management company to insure through an agency and company nominated by them. The management company applied under Paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a determination as to whether or not the insurance was satisfactory. The complaint was essentially a financial one. The management company contended that insurance could be obtained for a significantly lower cost. The respondent stated that the applicant was not getting “like for like” q

Dr. Gokcen v GM Property Investments

The LVT found as a fact that there was dry rot in the property and that the landlord had been on notice since October 2003. It has taken more than 12 months to even begin repairs. This was unacceptable. However, there was no evidence as to how much, if at all, the cost of the final works had been increased by. Rather than rejecting the claim (as in Whiteley, above), the LVT applied its own expert knowledge and reduced the total bill by some £11,000. Analysis Three cases with broadly similar facts and broa

Continental v White

In 1990, a report was obtained from Protim Services Ltd. The report noted excessive moisture in the property, apparently caused by the absence of an efficient damp proof course and lateral damp penetration. The report recommended installing a damp proof course and re-rendering the walls. The landlord failed to take any immediate action and the problem was not remedied until 1994, when Protim were asked to undertake remedial works. The works had the benefit of a 20 year guarantee. Between 1994 and 1997 dam

Wogu v Pleadream Properties Ltd

The LVT rejected this argument. It held that the Limitation Act 1980 had no application. Section 42 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provided that service charges were held on trust. The landlord was the statutory trustee and the tenant was the beneficiary of the trust. Section 21(1) Limitation Act 1980 provides that any action by a beneficiary under the trust was not subject to any limitation period. However, the LVT declined to deal with the service charge disputes for the year 1989-1997 on the basis of a l

Raja, Pauley & Brown v M&M Savant Ltd

It was alleged that the s20 notices had not contained copies of any estimates; the estimates were not displayed anywhere that was likely to come to the attention of the applicants; the description of the works was inadequate. The respondents admitted that various documents had not been given to the applicants and that it was unlikely that, but for the LVT hearing, they ever would have been. The LVT found that the consultation requirements had not been complied with. The estimates had not been made availab

Raisbeck v Ernle Estates Ltd

The applicant sought a determination of the reasonableness of administration charges demanded in respect of the preparation and service of a s146 Law of Property Act 1925 notice and interest claimed on arrears of service charges.
The LVT found that the notice was defective and could never have formed the basis of a claim for forfeiture. In those circumstances it ruled that the costs of the notice were irrecoverable.
The LVT also found that it had jurisdiction to consider the interest charges. Interest was alleged to be payable as a consequence of a failure by the tenant to pay a sum due and, as such, was an administration charge. Whilst the rate of interest was found to be reasonable, the amount claimed was reduced as it was premised on a mistaken belief as to the amount outstanding.
Analysis
The LVT’s jurisdiction over administration charges has not really had the impact that many thought it would. The definition of administration charges is very wide and, as cases like this one show, it has the potential to cover numerous charges which were previously thought to be unchallengable.
007

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council v Skiggs and others

The Leaseholders had applied to the LVT for a determination of the payability of service charges following a major works scheme. The freeholder was largely successful before the LVT but the LVT decided that s27A(1)(d) and (e), it had the jurisdiction to order that (a) the leaseholders need not pay for at least three months (b) that no interest could be charged in the interim period and (c) if matters could not be resolved, it would impose a payment mechanism on the parties. The Lands Tribunal upheld the f

The Approval of Codes of Management Practice

The Welsh Assembly has approved a new code of practice for property managers in Wales. The Rent Only Residential Management Code2 , as published by RICS, has approved and the previous version of the Code, which was approved under the Approval of Codes of Management Practice (Residential Property) Order 1996 has been withdrawn.
The change is effective from 1 February 2006.
005

Oakfern v Ruddy

The tenant applied to the LVT under s27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a determination that certain of the freeholders costs had been unreasonably incurred.
The tenant was not the direct tenant of the freeholder, but was the tenant under an intermediate lease. There was, therefore, no landlord-tenant relationship between the two parties.
At the LVT, the freeholder objected that the LVT lacked jurisdiction. It contended that its costs were not “service charges” as against the tenant and, in any event, the LVT had no jurisdiction where there was no landlord-tenant relationship. The LVT rejected both submissions.
On appeal to the Lands Tribunal, the LVT’s reasoning was upheld. The paying undertenant should be able to make an application against either his superior landlord or the mesne landlord. The mesne landlord may well have no interest in dealing with the dispute, and may well have no knowledge of the items of work which give rise to the dispute.
The Lands Tribunal was particularly influenced by the wording of s27A. The wording of s27A does not include any restriction on who may apply to the LVT for a determination of service charges, rather, it simply provides that “an application may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal”. To the extent that third parties with no real interest in the dispute might abuse this power, the Lands Tribunal was confident that such abuse could be prevented by the use of Regulation 11 of the LVT’s Procedural Regulations.
Analysis
This is one of a number of decisions of the Lands Tribunal included in this edition of the LVT Bulletin, all of which show the Lands Tribunal’s tendency to interpret the legislation concerning the LVT’s jurisdiction in the widest possible manner.
005

Case Law