In 2005, the Respondent freeholder had indicated that it was minded to carry out significant repair works to the building. These works were “qualifying works” within the meaning of s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, such that, if the Respondent did not adequately consult, then the amount that it could recover by way of service charges was capped at £250 per leaseholder unless the LVT gave dispensation from the consultation requirements.The Respondent engaged surveyors to prepare the s.20 notice. The notice was sent to the Appellant at Flat 3, 36 Bensing Road. It was known to the Respondent that the Appellant in fact lived in Forest Hill, London and not at Flat 3 (although she was the leasehold owner of the same).The Appellant contended that she had not been served with the s.20 notice. The LVT found as a fact that the s.20 notice had been sent by post to the Appellant at Flat 3 and that this was service within the meaning of the lease and, hence, good service.The LVT also found that, in any event, there was a “reasonable chance” that the Appellant had, in fact, received the notice.The Appellant appealed to the Lands Tribunal.The appeal was allowed. The flat was not the last known place of abode of the Appellant, nor was it her place of business nor was it an address that she had agreed could be used as a postal address. In any event, the was no evidence that the notice had actually made it to the flat as opposed to being left in the common parts. This was not a technical distinction but a point of substance. There was a real and significant difference between a letter which arrived in the communal areas and one which was actually put through the door of a demised property.As regards the “puzzling phraseology” that there was a “reasonable chance” that the Appellant had received the s.20 notice, this was a decision reached without considering all the relevant material. It was unclear what a “reasonable chance” actually meant. Something could be less than 50% likely (and, hence, not proved on the balance of probabilities) and yet still have a “reasonable chance” of being true.In the light of these decisions, the appropriate route was for the Lands Tribunal to reconsider the point. It was therefore found that the Appellant had not received the s.20 notice and the question of dispensation was remitted to the LVT.The summaries contained in this document are not intended to be taken or used as substitutes for legal advice. Nothing in this document should be relied upon as a definitive statement of law or practice. Parties should always seek legal advice on the specifics of their cases.
