Case Law

At the request of the leaseholders, the landlord had taken steps to resurface the drive and forecourt. The freeholder then applied for the LVT for a determination of the reasonableness of these charges. The LVT determined the charges to be reasonable.  Analysis This decision is wrong and is included in order to drive home the importance of remembering that the LVT is a statutory tribunal with limited jurisdiction. The works in question were not provided for in the lease. The LVT has no jurisdiction over c

The LVT found that the works had been necessary and done to a reasonable standard. It was particularly concerned that the applicant was unable to suggest a figure which he regarded as an appropriate charge. However, it took a different approach with the management fee. In common with most leases, the freeholder was given a discretion to add a management fee of up to 10%. The LVT found that it had the jurisdiction to consider whether or not this discretion had been properly exercised. They were guided by t

The complaint was that the landlord did not comply with the s20 consultation procedure and, as such, the costs of the work should be limited to £250 per leaseholder. It was argued that the LVT had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The lease contained an arbitration clause. The LVT rejected this argument. S27A(4)(b) only excluded the LVT’s jurisdiction where an arbitration clause had actually been invoked. It was not excluded by the mere existence of an arbitration clause. Analysis This decision must be

The Claimant was unsuccessful in his attempt to recover outstanding service charges. The LVT accepted two submissions, neither of which are controversial but both of which are worth reminding. Firstly, the claimant had failed to serve a notice under s48 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. This required him to give an address at which notices could be served on him. The effect of this failure was to mean that the service charges were not due. Secondly, the claimant had failed to reserve his right to collect unpa

The LVT decided to admit the documents. The Applicant was not substantially prejudiced by them. The issues were relatively straight forward and only one document was of direct relevance.  Analysis This must be one of the most common matters to come before the LVT – what to do when one party produces documents late. The assumption seems to be that the LVT can refuse to admit the evidence. It is not immediately obvious that they have this power. By regulation 16 of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (Procedu

The applicants then nominated a second candidate. The matter was adjourned again when it became clear that the second candidate was not in a position to say whether or not he could fulfil all the tasks required of him as a manager. The parties failed to provide each other with adequate information and, at the third hearing, it was once again clear that the proposed manager was unable to comment on whether or not he could comply with all the tasks required of him. Ultimately, he withdrew from contention a

The LVT held that there was likely to be a problem in enforcing the insurance policy and, therefore, this was not a matter which fell to be considered under s19.  Analysis The failure to claim on an insurance policy is a relatively common problem which comes before LVT’s and, as yet, there does not seem to be any discernable trend to their decisions and the whole area is one which would benefit from analysis by the Lands Tribunal. However, given that the lease will usually (a) oblige the landlord to obta

It gave a preliminary indication that it would make an order under s20C and order the reimbursement of application fees. However, it expressly invited the parties to submit evidence of attempts to settle and “Calderbank” letters before confirming this order.  Analysis Although the conduct of the parties is plainly something which should be considered when dealing with costs and fees, it is rare to see an LVT remind itself of this and expressly invite submissions. It is debateable to what extent this is ac

The problem was that the applicant was not seeking to recover any service charges from any tenants in respect of any works. Whether or not it had complied with s20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was therefore irrelevant as it had elected to bear the whole cost itself. The LVT accepted that the HO’s direction was misconceived and dismissed the application. Analysis It seems that even the Housing Ombudsman has difficulty understanding the jurisdiction of the LVT. This case raises no great point of importance

These provisions would have replaced the existing s21procedure contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and represented a major change in the duties of landlords to account for their service charges. The new provisions would have required landlords to produce a regular statement of account, an accountant’s certificate and a summary of the tenant’s right and obligations relating to service charges. Following sustained lobbying from Local Authorities and Registered Social Landlords, the ODPM has accept

Amendment to s.26, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and LEASE mediation service

  In the present case, the leaseholder had covenanted to pay service charges by two equal – on account – payments, and then an end of year balancing payment.