Case Law

The appellants argued that any lessee under a long lease of property which included a flat could be a qualifying tenant of that flat unless there was an under lessee who was himself a qualifying tenant. The respondents denied this and argued that a qualifying tenant had to be a tenant of the flat and nothing else. It was said that both the appellants were not tenants of a flat and that property investors, such as the appellants, were not to be permitted to make use of the provisions of the 1993 Act. The H

The LVT held that the limitation period was 6 years. An application by a tenant under s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was to determine whether he or she has overpaid in a service charge year. If she has overpaid, then she has a restitutionary claim for monies had and received. The limitation period for such a claim is 6 years. Analysis With all due respect to the LVT, their analysis in this case was confusing and difficult to follow. The question of limitation periods and LVT applications is a difficul

The LVT granted both applications for permission to appeal. The leaseholders took the point that the landlord could not be granted permission, as the application was made outside of the relevant time limits. The Lands Tribunal rejected this argument. The LVT had power to extend the period in which permission to appeal should be sought. When it granted permission to both parties, it made plain that it was granting permission notwithstanding the fact that the landlord had applied out of time. However, a pa

The respondents applied to the LVT for an appointment of a manager who would, amongst other things, discharge the obligations of the freeholder as regards the common parts. The LVT allowed the application and the claimant appealed, contending that the LVT had no jurisdiction to appoint a manager in respect of property which was not demised under a lease. The appeal was dismissed. The power to appoint a manager under Part 2 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was not limited in the manner contended for. The LVT c

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;

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

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

The applicants contended that the absence of an express power to make such a charge under the lease was fatal to the respondent’s case and that general clauses conferring “management” powers and functions was insufficiently precise for these purposes. The respondents argued that “management” should be given a broad interpretation, as it had in other areas of law, particularly in social housing cases. The LVT found for the applicants. The lease between the parties was a binding contractual agreement. No re

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

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

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