No.1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd [2020] UKUT 163 (LC) Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President – Landmark Chambers

‘The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 makes detailed provision for the regulation of residential service charges payable by long leaseholders. In particular, s.20B(1), 1985 Act provides that a tenant is not liable to pay service charges which were incurred more than 18 months before a demand for payment was served on the tenant. That provision does not apply if, within the same 18 month period, the tenant is notified in writing that the costs have been incurred and that he will subsequently be required under the terms of his lease to contribute to them by payment of a service charge (s.20B(2)). In Brent LBC v Shulem B Association Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 3014, the High Court held that the “demand” for the purposes of s.20B(1) had to be a contractually valid demand. That decision was approved – without argument to the contrary – in Skelton v DBS Homes (Kings Hill) Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1139.’

Full Story

Landmark Chambers, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.landmarkchambers.co.uk

Not not Nemcova – Nearly Legal

Posted June 8th, 2020 in appeals, covenants, housing, landlord & tenant, leases, news, tribunals by sally

‘Another Upper Tribunal decision to add to the now large pile of cases on airbnb/short let use and breach of lease. In this case, the FTT had found the short let use not to be in breach of lease (for cunning reasons I’ll come back to) and the head lessor had appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The decision upholds the Nemcova line on “private residence” use, but also has a finding of interest on “business use”.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 6th June 2020

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

The consequences of breaching absolute covenants – Tanfield Chambers

Posted June 4th, 2020 in covenants, landlord & tenant, leases, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘Residential leases can last a long time. A lot can change in 99 years or 999 years. What the landlord deemed an absolute “no-no” in 1965 might not seem such a bad idea now. However, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd [2020] UKSC 18; [2020] PLSCS 84 if the landlord has given other leaseholders in the block the benefit of a mutual enforceability covenant, the landlord will put itself in breach of covenant if it gives a tenant permission to do something which would breach an absolute covenant. The consequences of this decision are potentially far reaching.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 13th May 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Leasehold enfranchisement – options to reduce the price – Tanfield Chambers

Posted June 4th, 2020 in enfranchisement, Law Commission, leases, news, reports, valuation by sally

‘In relation to the qualifying criteria and procedure, the Law Commission was asked to make recommendations and the report on those aspects is due in the Spring. On the question of valuation, the Law Commission’s remit was slightly different. It was required to come up with “options” to reduce the premiums payable by leaseholders, not “recommendations”. It will then be a matter for the politicians to decide which option should be adopted. The Law Commission Report (Leasehold home ownership: buying your freehold or extending your lease. Report on options to reduce the price payable (HMSO, 2020), Law Com. No. 387) on those options was published on 9 January 2020.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 26th May 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

100 years on the Statute Book but only one contested case…until now…. – Tanfield Chambers

Posted June 4th, 2020 in charities, Christianity, enfranchisement, leases, news, trusts by sally

‘There was no dispute about the facts. The Claimant church is a charitable company limited by guarantee, which took a 30 year lease of a former industrial unit from the Defendants and converted it into a Church and community centre. That was the permitted use under the lease.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 22nd May 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Commercial Leases & Insolvency – An Overview – Pump Court Chambers

Posted May 29th, 2020 in coronavirus, insolvency, landlord & tenant, leases, news, rent by sally

‘With many businesses large and small struggling to survive or collapsing into administration or liquidation landlords are particularly vulnerable to rent arrears and the difficulty of finding a suitable tenant to replace the existing. The following is an overview of what steps a landlord can take in this uncertain world.’

Full Story

Pump Court Chambers, 26th May 2020

Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com

Every dog in the manger has its day. Sometimes two – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted May 21st, 2020 in covenants, landlord & tenant, leases, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Court of Appeal decision in Dr Julia Duval v 11 – 13 Randolph Crescent Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2298 was a wake-up call to landlords to be alive to their, often overlooked, obligations to enforce tenants’ covenants at the behest of other tenants. That decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court: [2020] UKSC 18.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 12th May 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

New judgment: Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd [2020 UKSC 18] – UKSC Blog

Posted May 7th, 2020 in covenants, landlord & tenant, leases, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘Two of the leases of 11-13 Randolph Crescent are held by the respondent, Dr Duval and a third lease Is held by Ms Martha Winfield. Each lease contains a covenant, clause 2.6, which prevents the lessee from making any alteration or improvement in, or addition to, the premises demised by the lease without the prior consent of the landlord. Each lease contains an absolute covenant, clause 2.7, which prevents the lessee from cutting into any roofs, walls, ceilings or service media. Clause 3.19 requires the landlord to enforce, at the request and cost of the lessee, certain covenants in the leases held by other lessees, including any covenant of a similar nature to clause 2.7. Mrs Winfield sought a licence from the landlord to carry out works to her flat which the landlord granted, subject to Mrs Winfield securing adequate insurance. Dr Duval then issued proceedings against the landlord seeking a declaration that the landlord did not possess the power to permit Mrs Winfield to act in breach of clause 2.7 of her lease. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 6th May 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Enfranchisement Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967: An overview and case law update – St Ives Chambers

Posted May 7th, 2020 in chambers articles, enfranchisement, leases, news by sally

‘This article is intended to provide a brief overview on the law of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (‘LRA’), with an update on recent case law.’

Full Story

St Ives Chambers, 4th May 2020

Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk

Service Charges and Management during the Covid-19 Pandemic: Legal Issues – Tanfield Chambers

Posted May 5th, 2020 in coronavirus, landlord & tenant, leases, news, service charges by sally

‘Leaseholders and landlords of residential leasehold properties face difficulties without any direct precedent in modern times. In particular, the sudden collapse in leaseholder incomes has had a dramatic effect on service charge receipts. The challenges pose numerous legal questions.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 1st May 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Much a door about nothing? When is a door a landlord’s fixture? – Falcon Chambers

Posted May 5th, 2020 in covenants, landlord & tenant, leases, news by sally

‘Mr Fivaz had (and still has) long leases of two flats in a block owned by by Marlborough. In around 2014 he unilaterally replaced the front door of each flat. About 5 years later the landlord complained that his actions constituted a breach of the leases. It brought proceedings in the FTT for a determination of breach pursuant to s.168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.’

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, April 2020

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

COVID 19: Revisiting Frustration in the Context of Leases – New Square Chambers

‘Sweeping and unprecedented rules, previously unimaginable, have been enacted by the Government to delay the spread of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Taken together, these changes constitute the most restrictive and draconian laws imposed in England since the Second World War. In particular, The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations’) were enacted on 26 March 2020 by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock. These Regulations impose severe restrictions mandating the closure of certain types of businesses alongside prohibitions on freedom of assembly and freedom of worship.’

Full Story

New Square Chambers, 20th April 2020

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Does CRAR mean the right to forfeiture is waived? Commercial landlords should carefully consider their options… – Tanfield Chambers

Posted April 21st, 2020 in chambers articles, forfeiture, landlord & tenant, leases, news, rent by sally

‘The procedure by which a landlord may recover arrears of rent in relation to commercial premises was fundamentally changed several years ago. Chapter 2 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 abolished the common law right to distrain for arrears of rent, replacing it with the commercial rent arrears recovery procedure (‘CRAR’). But what has been the impact of this change on whether a landlord taking enforcement action to recover arrears waived his right to forfeiture of a lease?’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 9th April 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Jonathan Upton successful in High Court appeal on the right to enfranchise under the 1967 Act – Each Other

‘In Freehold Properties 250 Ltd v Field and others [2020] EWHC 792 (Ch) (Marcus Smith J) the court considered: (i) whether a tenant has a right to enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the 1967 Act”) where the structural parts (i.e. the roof, foundations and load-bearing walls) of the house are excluded from the demise; and (ii) whether the exclusion of the structural parts is void under s.23(1) of the 1967 Act.’

Full Story

Each Other, 14th April 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Coronavirus: a frustrating situation – Falcon Chambers

Posted April 17th, 2020 in chambers articles, coronavirus, landlord & tenant, leases, news by sally

‘The UK is currently grappling with what is hoped to be the peak of the Coronavirus crisis. Landlords and tenants have both been hit: government guidance and legislation has prevented many tenants from using premises as they expected, and prevented landlords from forfeiting leases or seeking possession. Both may feel that they are locked into a bargain that they could not have anticipated and want to escape from. But can they?’

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, April 2020

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Managing Enfranchisement Claims during the Coronavirus Pandemic – Falcon Chambers

‘Leasehold enfranchisement and right to manage practitioners are used to dealing with unexpected developments, tight deadlines and strict rules. They ought therefore to be well placed to manage the difficulties presented by the Coronavirus crisis. Nonetheless, the present circumstances are undoubtedly challenging for those acting for landlords or tenants in enfranchisement, lease extension and right to manage matters.’

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, April 2020

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Modification of Leasehold Covenants: The latest decision – Falcon Chambers

Posted April 16th, 2020 in chambers articles, covenants, landlord & tenant, leases, news by sally

‘In its latest decision on the modification of restrictive covenants in leases under s. 84, the Lands Tribunal has refused to modify a use covenant in a long lease prohibiting the use of the demised premises in question as a hotel.’

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, April 2020

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited v Leslie Stafford Miller [2019] UKUT 402 (LC) – Tanfield Chambers

‘The FTT improperly purported to determine matters which it had no statutory authority to do so on the basis of the generality of the County Court’s order transferring the matter to it.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 2nd April 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

The Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of the City of London v Various Leaseholders of Great Arthur House [2019] UKUT 341 (LC) – Tanfield Chambers

‘The Upper Tribunal determined, by reference to the interpretation of the specific terms of various “Right to Buy” leases, whether the leaseholders were liable to contribute to the landlord’s costs of repairing structural defects.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 2nd April 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Martha Timbo v The Mayor and Burgess of the London Borough of Lambeth [2019] EWHC 1396 (Ch) – Tanfield Chambers

‘In a claim for relief from forfeiture the High Court refused to order relief where there was no good reason for delay beyond 6 months from re-entry, whether this resulted in a windfall for the landlord was irrelevant to the question of promptness.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 25th February 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk