Case Law

The Upper Tribunal remitted a case back to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (“FTT”) as the FTT had not been entitled to come to the decision it had on the limited facts before it.

No duress had been applied by a landlord on his tenant when the former sought retrospective consent for works undertaken to his property and payment was then demanded for the same. An explicit statement from the tenant that a payment was “fine” constituted an acceptance of the administration charge such that the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) had had no jurisdiction to determine it.

Granting the qualifying tenants a revocable licence to use a communal garden did not satisfy s.1(4)(a) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as the right granted was not "permanent".

In determining the premiums payable for new leases of three flats in Hemel Hempstead pursuant to Schedule 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 transactional evidence was preferred over graphs of relativity.

The Facts, the Issue and the FTT’s Determination

The tenant had behaved unreasonably in the FTT proceedings. The landlord had been awarded some of its costs of service charge proceedings before the FTT under rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.  Could the landlord subsequently rely on a contractual indemnity clause in the lease to claim the whole of the costs of the same proceedings as an administration charge?

Facts, the Issue and the FTT Decision:

Both conjoined appeals were decided by written determinations. They were both appeals from determinations of the FTT under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, s. 27A. The common factor in each appeal (from decisions made by different Tribunals and concerned with different properties and service charge demands) was that, in each case, the FTT had failed to determine the fundamental question raised by the application before it, namely, what amount was payable by the tenant to the landlord as a service charge. As a result there remained uncertainty at the conclusion of the proceedings over the entitlements and obligations of the parties, with the subject appeals resulting.

Facts:

In June 2013, the management company (“MC”) sent Ts a notice of intention to carry out qualifying work at the property, being the rendering and painting of the exterior of the property.

Facts:

L brought proceedings in the FTT against T for a determination of the reasonableness and payability of service charges demanded from T under s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.  Part of the service charges upon which L sought a determination was its legal costs of previous s.27A proceedings before the LVT in 2010 and 2011.

Summary

On the proper interpretation of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 the acquisition of the right to manage by an RTM company did not prevent the landlord from carrying out development works to the building, for example constructing a flat on the roof of an existing building.  However, the landlord's right was not untrammelled and it was required to take all reasonable steps to minimise the disturbance to the RTM company's management functions both during and after the works.

Summary

A superior landlord intending to carry out qualifying works or to enter into a Qualifying Long Term Agreement (‘QLTA’) must consult each of its direct tenants of a dwelling (or dwellings) and each of its own tenants’ sub-tenants of a dwelling (or dwellings) who would be liable to contribute towards the costs of the works.  The freeholder in this case had consulted its immediate tenant – an intermediate landlord – but not that tenant’s sub-tenants and had therefore failed to comply with the statutory consultation requirements. 

In two claims heard together in the Chancery Division of the High Court, the court examined the operation of the statutory scheme in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Part I, Chapter II (claims for a new lease).  The two issues before the court were (1) whether the freeholder’s requirement for a foreign lawyer’s opinion was a “term of acquisition”; and (2) whether a solicitor’s statement that “we will complete on receipt of funds” was a solicitor’s undertaking that could be relied on as a formal undertaking to force completion of the transaction.

The Tenant was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and held two underleases of a flat and garage.  On 20^th May 2014 the Tenant served a section 42 notice on the Landlord seeking a new lease and setting out proposals.  A counternotice was served setting out counter-proposals and subsequently the parties entered into negotiations.  By November 2014, the freeholder informed the Tenant that a foreign lawyer’s opinion would be required from a BVI lawyer confirming the tenant’s status, capacity and financial solvency prior to completion.  The Tenant agreed to obtain and provide the opinion.

In a decision following consideration of three appeals, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (“UT”) have now provided guidance on the application of Rule 13 of the Tribunal (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. 

Rule 13 provides that “the Tribunal may make an order in respect of costs only…if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings.”   The amount of costs that can be ordered is unlimited.