Case Law

The case concerned service charges at a block of flats held by Southwark. One of the eight flats was let on long lease to the respondents. The other seven were all retained by Southwark. The lease provided that Southwark could adopt any “reasonable method” of apportioning costs. In practice, Southwark split the costs according to the number of bedrooms in each flat.

In short, when Mr & Mrs Francis acquired the freehold reversion, they decided that the estate needed considerable work in order to bring it up to a “first class standard”. This, in turn, led to a more than doubling of the service charges demanded in 2009. The leaseholders objected and issued proceedings seeking, inter alia, declarations about the scope of the service charge provisions in the lease.

The landlord had acquired the freehold reversion in 2008. In the usual way, it sent out service charge demands in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Those demands failed to comply with s.47, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 in that they did not give the name and address of the landlord, with the result that the service charges were not to be treated as due. The correct information was, however, sent in 2011 (and retrospectively for the earlier – defective – years).

The issue was whether or not the lease provided for the payment of a service charge as defined by s.18, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that is to say, a charge which, inter alia, “varies or may vary according to the relevant costs”. There were five forms of lease with five forms of clause.

The UT(LC) noted that neither party had raised this issue and that the landlord had been given no opportunity to respond to it. It followed that there had been a procedural unfairness. Having said that, however, the LVT did, in principle, have the jurisdiction to determine the issue of payability (see s.27A) and the landlord had made full submissions in support of the appeal. In the circumstances, it was appropriate to now decide the issue.

The landlord alleged that the tenant had failed to give notice of the assignment of the lease. The LVT held that there had been a breach, but it had been waived. It then held that the behaviour of the landlord was “not far short” of being vexatious or an abuse of process and that the landlord should pay the costs of the application. It then made an order under s.20C, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, preventing the landlord from recovering its costs via the service charge.

This was another case concerning the payment of an administration charge in connection with a sub-letting. In outline, Mr & Mrs Piatti were the leaseholders of a flat and FM(N) Ltd were the freeholders. The lease prohibited subletting without consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. Subletting took place without consent and FM(N) Ltd pointed out that consent was needed and suggested a range of fees, depending on whether the leaseholders wanted “one off” consent or a licence for up to five years. The parties were unable to agree a fee and so the issue went to the LVT. The LVT found that nothing was payable as the lease didn’t expressly mention a right to charge a fee. The UT allowed an appeal. The right to require consent included with it a right to demand payment of a reasonable fee, i.e. consent can be on terms that include payment of a fee. On the facts, £165 was reasonable.

Report of the enfranchisement case Mehta v Grosvenor Estate Belgravia, case reference LON/00BK/OAF/2008/0047, decided in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on 07/01/2009. The case of Mehta v Grosvenor Estate Belgravia involved the purchase of the freehold interest in a residential property in London under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Report of the appeal case Simmonds Franks and Others v Towse decided in the Lands Tribunal under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

Report of the enfranchisement case 4, 6 & 8 Carlton Hill Ltd (Nominee Purchaser) v CGS Eyre and Others, case reference LON/ENF/1209/2004 and LON/ENF/1210/2004, decided in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on 22/08/2005. The case of 4, 6 & 8 Carlton Hill Ltd (Nominee Purchaser) v CGS Eyre and Others involved the purchase of the freehold interest in three residential apartments in London under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

Report of the appeal case Visible Information Packaged Systems Limited & VIP Number 2 Limited v Marionette Limited, case reference LON/00BE/LIS/2006/0075, decided in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on 27/10/2006. The case of Visible Information Packaged Systems Limited & VIP Number 2 Limited v Marionette Limited involved outstanding service charges regarding residential apartments in London under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

Report of the appeal case Speedwell Estates Limited decided in the Lands Tribunal on 17/01/2000.