Case Law

  In the present case, the freeholder had granted a lease to a third party of the roofspace and airspace, with a view to that third party building a flat or flats. The tenants then sought to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement and sought to purchase only part of the property dealt with by the aforementioned lease...

  From November 29, 2010, there are new procedural rules and a new (more expensive) fee regime for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Both are available to download from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).  End.

The respondent tenants sought to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement and served an initial notice under s.13, 1993 Act which was duly registered with the Land Registry. It appears that the landlord agreed that the tenants had the right to enfranchise but disputed their proposed price, such that the tenants applied to the LVT for a determination of the same.

A leaseholder issued proceedings in the LVT challenging the reasonableness of certain items of expenditure. During the course of proceedings, the LVT appears to have decided that it was for the appellant company to justify its charges and, when it failed to do so, disallowed a proportion of the service charges.

Where an RTM company has successfully acquired the right to manage, s.94, 2002 Act makes provision for “accrued service charges” to be paid over to the RTM company, with the LVT determining the amount to be paid in default of agreement.