‘The First Tier Tribunal is entitled to rely on an applicant to send its application, but not the FTT’s subsequent decision, to the respondents to that application. Time will not start running for a party to apply for a permission to appeal until the FTT has itself provided a copy of its decision to that party.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st December 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Under section 20B(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a service charge must be demanded of the tenant within 18 months of the relevant cost having been incurred by the landlord. But what happens when there is a head landlord demanding a charge from an intermediate landlord who, in turn, passes the cost on to their lessees? When does the 18 months run from?’
Nearly Legal, 1st December 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Service charges are fees that homeowners often commit to pay under the terms of the lease they enter into when they purchase their homes.[1] They are increasingly common in share-of-freehold properties, and commonly include the costs of insurance, lighting, maintenance, cleaning and the repair of common parts such as lifts and gyms, as well as fees for the purchase, sale, sublet or alteration of a flat. They can also effect the purchase of some freehold properties.’
4 KBW, 14th November 2017
Source: www.4kbw.net
‘The Upper Tribunal upheld the First Tier Tribunal’s decision that units of accommodation designed for students were ‘dwellings’, but overturned the decision that such units were ‘separate dwellings’. As such, the FTT did not have jurisdiction to determine the amount of service charges payable by the units’ leaseholders under sections 18 to 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.’
Tanfield Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The FTT had correctly ruled that a management agreement was for a term of more than twelve months, and therefore a long-term qualifying agreement for the purposes of s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.’
Tanfield Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘It is rare, if we are entirely honest, for a First Tier Tribunal decision on service charges to be exciting. It is even rarer for there to be mystery and police raids, and “Immunity from Treason” notices, and debts of “Trillions of pounds”, and something called an ‘equity lawyer’. Yet here they all are, and more, in what on the face of it was a dispute over annual service charges of about £1200.’
Nearly Legal, 23rd July 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Leases generally require leaseholders to contribute to insurance of their block – whether by including the cost in the general service charges or by way of a separate charge known as an “insurance rent”.’
Tanfield Chambers, 22nd June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal reversed decisions from the First Tier Tribunal in respect of the validity of estimated service demands, the requirements to prove the service of a notice under section 20B in light of the incorporation of section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in the lease, and whether a tenant had waived the Landlord’s non-compliance with service charge mechanism of the lease by conduct.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A local authority was required to give credit to leaseholders for funds received from third-parties when recovering a contribution to the cost of major works.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Since the Supreme Court turned the law of dispensation from the consultation requirements upside down in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] 2 EGLR 45, the Upper Tribunal has been troubled with very few cases involving the requirements to consult leaseholders on major works. However, the decision in Lessees of Foundling Court and O’Donnell Court v Camden London Borough Council and others [2016] UKUT 366 (LC); [2016] EGLR 59 has rewritten preconceptions as to who needs to be consulted and caused landlords some new headaches.’
Tanfield Chambers, 12th June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘This was an appeal to the UT on various issue arising from an FTT decision. We will not dwell on the issue of specific charges not being consulted on under s.20, but not – as the UT found, overturning the FTT – subject to a Qualifying Long Term Agreement, because the more general point concerned the landlord having put some £11,000 of legal costs on the drawn out service charge disputes through on the service charge (not, we should note, as an administrative charge).’
Nearly Legal, 28th May 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal has held that an estimated service charge that had not been demanded in accordance with a lease would not have been payable but for the lessee taking out a loan from the lessor to pay it and thereby waiving strict compliance with the terms of the lease; s.7, Interpretation Act 1978 does not apply to notices served under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 unless a lease provides that s.196 Law of Property Act 1925 is to apply to the service of notices’
Arden Chambers, 20th April 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘Rochdale BH is a social housing provider (of what was the council’s housing stock). The issue in this case – heard as a preliminary issue – was whether Rochdale BH was a water reseller under the terms of The Water Resale Order 2006 in that charges for water it made as a part of the rent.’
Nearly Legal, 23rd April 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In Sheffield City Council v Oliver (2007) EWCA Civ 225 the local authority was unsuccessful in its appeal from an Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision concerning the funding of major refurbishment works to several blocks of flats of which it is the freeholder.’
Local Government Law, 5th April 2017
‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that it is was not unreasonable conduct for the purposes of r.13(1)(b), Tribunal Procedure Rules, for a landlord to seek to rely on an agreement that service charges were payable, even if that agreement was subsequently determined to be void. Nor did the landlord’s failure to mediate amount to unreasonable conduct in circumstances where the prospects of a reaching an agreement were slight and the costs of mediation likely to be disproportionate. It also held that orders pursuant to s.20C, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, should not treat participating leaseholders differently from one another on the basis of their involvement in proceedings. The focus should be on the landlord’s degree of success regardless of each individual leaseholder’s involvement.’
Arden Chambers, 3rd March 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘Towards the end of last year, the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) handed down decisions in two cases involving estoppel by convention:
Admiralty Park Management Ltd v Ojo [2016] UKUT 0421 (LC) 8 September 2016 (“Ojo”); and
Bucklitsch and anor v Merchant Exchange Management Company Limited [2016] UKUT 0527 (LC) 13 December 2016 (“Bucklitsch”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th January 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has given guidance on the approach to be followed by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) when considering whether there is an estoppel by convention which prevents a leaseholder from denying the payability of a service charge which has not been demanded in accordance with the terms of the lease.’
Arden Chambers, 16th February 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘The Court of Appeal has held that whether service charge costs are reasonably incurred, for the purposes of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s.19, is to be determined by reference to an objective standard of reasonableness rather than applying public law principles of rationality. A tribunal should not, however, impose its own decision where a landlord has adopted a course of action which led to a reasonable outcome, even if there was a cheaper outcome which was also reasonable.’
Arden Chambers, 2nd February 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘An interesting question. To what extent, if at all, can leaseholders’ service charges be set at a level to ‘subsidise’ a shortfall as against actual maintenance costs in service charges recoverable from social tenants in flats provided under a section 106 agreement.’
Nearly Legal, 12th February 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘We saw the Upper Tribunal take a new approach to determining whether the costs of improvement works, passed on through the service charge, were reasonably incurred. The UT held that particular consideration should have been given to the views of the leaseholders, whether they could be done more cheaply and the financial circumstances of the leaseholders.’
Nearly Legal, 5th February 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024