Case Law

The claim succeeded. The consultation requirements applied to “landlords” and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 defined landlord in conventional terms, i.e. it did not include prospective landlords.

The Claimant issued a Part 8 claim in the county court and sought a declaration that the lease provided for the Defendants to pay fixed yearly payment which rose by 10% each year and this clause was not a variable service charge within the meaning of s.18, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

There was then a second set of LVT proceedings (which were the subject of this appeal) relating to the costs of the 2009 case; the landlord sought to recover them through the service charge but the LVT held that no costs were recoverable. It accepted that the lease allowed for the recovery of the costs, but held that the costs had not been incurred by the landlord in the capacity as a landlord, but, rather, in its capacity as owner of the three flats. Further, it held that the 2009 proceedings were a char

Sinclair Gardens used its own insurance agency, which charged a 12% handling fee, to deal with claims management and a broker to obtain the premium. The overall cost was £4,154.25 to insure the property. Avon Estates contended that the insurance premium was not reasonably incurred within the meaning of s.19, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It relied upon a quote it had obtained which would have insured the property for a quarter of the price. It also argued that the 12% handling fee was, in any event, unr

The LVT rejected this argument. Triplerose had not suffered any prejudice and, in any event, the error had been rectified by Grantglen notifying Triplerose of the correct name of the landlord in its application to the LVT. The Upper Tribunal allowed Triplerose’s appeal. It was immaterial whether Triplerose had suffered prejudice or not; s.47 required the service charge demand to specify the name of the landlord and the disputed service charge demand had failed to do so. While it was generally inappropri

In 2009, Mr McNeil issued proceedings in the county court for a refund in respect of the charge. He alleged that the management company was not entitled – under the lease – to impose the car parking scheme and that his right of way on the estate had been infringed. At a directions hearing, however, Mr McNeil conceded that the management company had the power to impose such a scheme, but challenged the imposition of the charges made under the scheme. Mr McNeil, subsequently, discontinued his claim. The

The leaseholders successfully appealed to the Upper Tribunal. Once the LVT had admitted the evidence of Mr Lee it was not open to the LVT to reject it simply because Island Homes had had insufficient time to respond to it. The LVT had failed to consider and have proper regard to Mr Lee’s evidence. The LVT should either have refused to admit the evidence of Mr Lee – on the basis it was filed late - or given Island Homes an opportunity to respond to it by adjourning the hearing. It could not simply igno

Ms Cussens appealed to the High Court arguing that there was no jurisdiction to enable the county court to make a declaration of this nature. The appeal was dismissed. While s.168, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 did not expressly provide that a county court could make a declaration of this sort, the county court had such jurisdiction under s.15, County Courts Act 1984, i.e. to deal with cases about contracts. The lease was a contract and so the county court had jurisdiction. However, (a) the cou

The new rules are much more extensive than the previous LVT procedure rules and provide the First-tier Tribunal with more flexible (and useful) case management powers. For example, the First-tier Tribunal will have the ability to strike out a respondent’s statement of case, the power to issue a witness summons and to transfer complex cases to the Upper Tribunal. There is also a provision enabling the Tribunal to set aside its own decision where it has breached the rules of natural justice and for it to

Report of the enfranchisement case Baird v Millinder, case reference LON/00AE/OAF/2006/0090, decided in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on 01/12/2006. The case of Baird v Millinder involved the purchase of the freehold interest in a residential property in London under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Report of the enfranchisement case The Trustees of the Campden Charities v Kleinwort Benson (Jersey) Trustees Ltd, case reference LON/00AW/OAF/2005/0126, decided in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on 11/12/2006. The case of The Trustees of the Campden Charities v Kleinwort Benson (Jersey) Trustees Ltd involved the purchase of the freehold interest in a residential property in London under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Report of the enfranchisement case Cheema v MacKay, case reference BIR/00CS/OAF/2006/0175, decided in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on 07/02/2007. The case of Cheema v MacKay involved the purchase of the freehold interest in a residential property in the West Midlands under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.