‘Leaseholders have won a Court of Appeal case against the City of London Corporation over whether certain repairs to their homes are chargeable to them.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st March 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Some brief notes on Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal judgments on leasehold matters.’
Nearly Legal, 6th March 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A rather odd Upper Tribunal appeal of an FTT decision as to whether the costs of a new roof to parts of a block of flats would be recoverable under the service charge.. which takes us into the nature of a repair or renewal and how far it needs to be ‘like for like’ or whether it simply needs to be such as to make the property ‘reasonably fit for occupation’.’
Nearly Legal, 30th September 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Where a landlord is looking to do works that would cost residential leaseholders more than £250 each under the service charge, they have to follow the section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 consultation requirements. If they don’t, then they can only recover £250 from each leaseholder, unless they apply to the First Tier Tribunal for dispensation from s.20.’
Nearly Legal, 4th July 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This appeal was against the Deputy Master’s refusal in [2019] EWHC 3414 (Ch) to dismiss Blacks, the tenant’s counterclaim or to grant a summary money judgement in relation to S&H, the landlord’s claim for rent for over £400,000. It raised complicated issues concerning the construction and inter-relation between a set-off clause and a certification provision.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th June 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
Landmark Chambers, 2nd June 2020
Source: www.landmarkchambers.co.uk
‘On Halloween in 2003, the Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the “Regulations”) came into force, amending section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“LTA 1985”). This amendment set a financial limit to works carried out on a residential building, beyond which a landlord would have to consult with tenants. That threshold is £250 per tenant. The nature of the consultation is prescribed by section 20 LTA 1985.’
Becket Chambers, 27th May 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘[Landlord & Tenant Act 1985] s.27A(6) provides that:
An agreement by the tenant of a dwelling (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination—(a) in a particular manner, or (b) on particular evidence,
of any question which may be the subject of an application under subsection (1) …’
Hardwicke Chambers, 28th May 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal considered the status of service charges recovered by a manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.’
Tanfield Chambers, 2nd April 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘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.’
Tanfield Chambers, 25th February 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A quick note on a Upper Tribunal (LC) appeal concerning whether services charge demands had been delivered. At first instance, the FTT had reached a decision about the reasonableness of the service charge demands, but in respect of the respondent, it held that the charges were not payable by the respondent because she had not received the demands.’
Nearly Legal, 22nd February 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The First Tier Tribunal had been entitled to reach the conclusions it had as to the degree of separation between two heating systems on adjoining estates. On that basis, the interpretation they had reached of the service charge provisions in the relevant leases was correct, as costs incurred replacing pipes on one estate were not costs “incidental” to the provision of services on the other.’
Tanfield Chambers, 21st January 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘On an appeal against a determination of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) as to the reasonableness and payability of service charges, the Upper Tribunal found that the FTT had erred in its construction of the residential leases.’
Tanfield Chambers, 21st January 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Likely payments from third parties, including insurers, may be considered when the assessing what sums are reasonable and accordingly payable in respect of service charges in advance under s.19 (2) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.’
Tanfield Chambers, 21st January 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘An Upper Tribunal appeal decision where just about everything that could have been wrong about the first instance First Tier Tribunal decision was.’
Nearly Legal, 5th January 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The long-running saga of East Tower Apartments Limited v No.1 West India Quay Residential Limited continues.
The landlord has been given permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the issue of whether a demand under Section 20B(1) must be a contractually valid demand. If the landlord is successful, this will likely require the Upper Tribunal to find that Brent London Borough Council v Schulem B Association Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 3014 was wrongly decided.’
Tanfield Chambers, 29th November 2019
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘There was inadequate evidence to conclude that a lease was ‘unsatisfactory’ for the purposes of s.35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’), and an FTT order varying the lease was overturned. The FTT decision finding no prejudice due to a lack of expert evidence was also set aside: this decision could not stand in circumstances where an application to adjourn to obtain expert evidence had been refused due to their being an expert surveyor on the panel.’
Tanfield Chambers, 29th November 2019
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘For the purposes of Section 47 of the 1987 Act, where only one address is contained in the invoice, this is sufficient. Where more than one address is given, the landlord’s address should be clearly identified.’
Tanfield Chambers, 29th November 2019
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A contract between a landlord and a managing agent was found to have come into existence when the performance of management services commenced and not on the date of the landlord’s payment for the services provided. In the circumstances, the particular contract was a qualifying long term agreement and the statutory consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were applicable.’
Tanfield Chambers, 29th November 2019
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025