Case Law

section 27A(6) of the 1985 Act renders void an agreement that the apportionment of service charges shall be in accordance with a determination of a third party whose decision is to be final and binding. 

A landlord was not entitled in the last financial year of a lease to include provision for expenditure in a future financial year and had to give full credit for such provision which had been charged up to the date the lease had determined

This case turns on its facts but at [26] Martin Rodger QC’s obiter comments on the possible consequences of late service of a demand for payment of an interim service charge payable on account are worth noting. 

 A covenant to keep the building insured against “the usual comprehensive risks” obliged the landlord to insure against terrorism. 

An allegation of historic neglect may provide a defence to a claim for service charges if it can be shown that, but for a failure by the landlord to make good a defect at the time required by its covenant, part of the cost eventually incurred in remedying that defect, or the whole of the cost of remedying consequential defects, would have been avoided.

The key ruling in this case is that Directive 93/13, which has been given effect in UK domestic law by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, will apply to a residential tenancy agreement where the landlord is acting for purposes relating to his trade, business or profession and the tenant is not.

 The key issue in this case is an analysis of CPR r. 3.9 following the Jackson reforms.  The court is now to adopt a more robust approach to granting relief to defaulting parties from the consequences of their defaults.

A landlord’s contractual entitlement to costs against a tenant is an administration charge which is not caught by paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 12 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – which after 1 July 2013 no longer applies in England – or by any rule in the Tribunal Procedure (First–tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

Where a tenant requires consent from the landlord to underlet (and such consent is according to the lease not to be unreasonably withheld), whilst the relevant lease provision did not expressly refer to the landlord being able to charge for such consent, section 19(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 applied so as to enable the landlord to charge a reasonable sum.

An LVT had failed to adequately explain its reasons for its decision that the reasonable cost of cleaning was less than the cost explained in detail by the landlord’s evidence.  

Under the old tribunal rules an applicant could not bring to an end an application for a determination that they had the right to manage under s84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 simply by serving a notice of withdrawal. 

A landlord’s costs in dealing with a Right to Manage claim could include the costs incurred by managing agents under a management agreement.