‘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
‘The vexed issues of costs in service charge disputes rumble on. Willow Court Management Company (1985) Ltd v Alexander [2016] UKUT 0290 (LC) (our note) set out guidance for how and when rule 13 costs awards will be engaged and awarded in the First Tier Tribunal (for unreasonable conduct). But in this case, the landlord had been awarded 20% of their costs under a Rue 13 decision, but then sought to recover the full costs under a contractual entitlement to costs of an enforcement action under the lease, and sort the FTT’s determination of those as a variable administration charge.’
Nearly Legal, 9th January 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A failure to comply with the Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”) could be relevant to the reasonableness of the amount of service charge to be paid under section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, it is simply one factor to be considered. In the instant case, the non-compliance comprised including within the estimate the estimated cost of works not within the proposed works; the amount demanded would be reduced by excluding that ‘extra’ work.’
Tanfield Chambers, 10th October 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Ms K had a weekly tenancy of a flat (initially her daughter’s flat but assigned to her in 2014 by mutual exchange). The tenancy agreement provided for the payment of rent and also a weekly payment for service charge, originally £14.60. In 2015 the service charge was raised to £16.22. The tenancy agreement specified payment of the service charge but the space for the services to be provided was left blank.’
Nearly Legal, 10th October 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘On 22 June 2016, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) gave judgment in three conjoined appeals concerning the proper interpretation of Rule 13 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013; four members of Hardwicke appeared in the case. The appeals shared a number of facts: each arose out of a dispute over service charges payable under the lease of a flat; each concerned a dispute between a lessee and a tenant owned management company; and in each the award of costs was greater than the amount of service charge in issue in the proceedings.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Did you know that a judge of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) may be able to hear a county court case and vice versa? Under a scheme being piloted at present, such a thing is indeed possible.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th June 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘By their very nature, mixed-use developments involve multiple parties with competing interests. This often leads to disputes regarding the management of the estate and the cost of maintaining it and, ultimately, to leaseholders wanting to take control (either by exercising the right to collective enfranchisement or the right to manage).’
Tanfield Chambers, 10th June 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025