Case Law

These regulations amend the rules for calculating the inflation allowance to be added to the estimate of service charges payable in the initial period. The inflation allowance is now calculated by reference to the BERR Output Deflators for Direct Labour: Public Housing Repairs and Maintenance, published quarterly by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

“In default of any leaseholder applying to be joined or otherwise seeking to make representations to the Tribunal all remaining leaseholders will be bound by the decision of the Tribunal”. The final hearing dealt with all matters in dispute save for the recoverability of gas charges. The VLT concluded that it could not deal with that aspect on the limited evidence available and gave directions for further evidence in respect of that one matter. That further evidence showed that there had been some genu

The LVT had found that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The bungalows were not “dwellings” as required by s.18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The applicans appealed to the Lands Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. The bungalows were not occupied as “dwellings”. A dwelling implied that it was occupied as a home. These properties were expressly restricted to holiday accommodation. Analysis This is not a surprising decision. In the field of landlord and tenant law it is long settled that a “dwe

An issue arose as to the jurisdiction of the LVT and whether the service charges were fixed or varied. If they were fixed, then the LVT was not empowered to hear the dispute as the service charge would not fall within the scope of s.18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The LVT found that the service charge was variable. It took the view that a power to vary the charge during the year was sufficient for these purposes. The Lands Tribunal disagreed. There was nothing in the lease which linked the level of the s

These Regulations prescribe the content of the summary of rights and obligations which must accompany demands for service charges in respect of properties in Wales.

The question was whether or not the property was “designed or adapted for living in” as required by s.2(1) Leasehold Reform Act 1967. G argued that, when the notice was served, the building was not physically fit for immediate residential occupation and could not be said to be “designed or adapted for living in.” The House of Lords disagreed. The fact that the property was currently unoccupied and was currently unsuited for residential occupation did not have any impact on the question of whether or not i

The appellant then applied to dispense with the consultation provisions under s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The LVT refused. It noted that the appellant had the benefit of legal advice and, whilst the errors in the s.20 notices were minor and were unlikely to have misled the leaseholders, there had to be a sanction for landlords who failed to comply with the consultation requirements. The landlord appealed for the Lands Tribunal, who allowed the appeal. The test for the LVT was whether it was reaso

The question was whether or not the flat beneath C’s flat could be said to be premises in which C’s flat was contained. The House of Lords rejected M’s submissions and held that the flat beneath C’s flat could not be said to be part of the premises in which C’s flat was contained and – hence – that there was no right to redevelop and defeat the claim for a new lease. The premises in which C’s flat was located was the whole block of flats. To hold anything else would have meant ignoring the fact that the

In relation to hope value, the Lands Tribunal accepted that it was possible to identify “hope value” and that it could be separately valued. However, the Tribunal held that one was required to exclude hope value when considering the price to be paid under the statutory mechanisms. The Court of Appeal was clearly impressed by the range of evidence which had been before the Lands Tribunal and remarked that the freeholders would be required to show that the approach of the Lands Tribunal had been irrational.

Ms. Gianfrancesco was one of two leaseholders in the property. The leases provided that the flat should be maintained both internally and externally by the tenant, but that the upper flat was responsible for the maintenance of the roof and the lower flat for the maintenance of the foundations. This arrangement had – Ms. Gianfrancesco contended – a number of defects: (a) the landlord was not obliged to contribute towards the costs of roof repairs and there was no mechanism for collecting any contributions;

By s.159(2) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, a variable estate charge is payable only to the extent that the amount of the charge is reasonable; and “variable estate charge” means an estate charge which is neither specified in the scheme, nor calculated in accordance with a formula specified in the scheme. By s.159(3) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 any person on whom an obligation to pay an estate charge is imposed by the scheme may apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for an order v

The appellants appealed to the Lands Tribunal, contending that the LVTs approach was wrong in law. The Lands Tribunal agreed. It would need clear words before a landlord would be deprived of any entitlement to collect service charges. If the tenants were concerned about the absence of a certificate, their remedy was to apply for a determination under s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the failure to produce a certificate is a matter which would weigh against the landlord in that determination. In add