Websters Accountants - Property Accounting & Property Auditors

Archive for April, 2010

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

What is a “fair” apportionment of service charges?

Another legal decision has been published in an article by Shoosmiths about the ‘fair’ apportionment of service charges between tenants in a new build development of residential flats.

The article concludes:

It is important that landlords and managing agents consult before setting service charge levels because in this case, the service charges amounted to more than 100% of the landlords costs.  This encouraged the tenants to seek a legal decision to vary their leases in order to adjust the apportionment between the leaseholders to a more “fair” share.

This decision should not be seen as a get out of jail card for landlords in getting the service charge percentages wrong, provided they all add up to 100%. Rather, it highlights the difficulties in calculating fair service charge proportions especially when dealing with premises of different sizes and in larger estates where different parts get the benefit of different services.

It is in no one’s interests that tenants should feel aggrieved by what they perceive as an unfair service charge, and in new developments in particular it should be possible to avoid this. An essential element of doing so is a robust analysis of the service charge as early as possible in the scheme.

Read the full article here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

Procedural requirements for residential landlords

An article by John Levy of Lewis Silkin solicitors

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) imposes stringent procedural requirements on landlords who wish to carry out repairs to residential premises and recover the costs from the tenants. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (“LVT”) has power to dispense with those requirements if it is reasonable to do so.

In the case of Daejan Investments v. Benson and others, Daejan sought to recover approximately £270,000 from five leaseholders. The leaseholders complained that Daejan had not complied with a number of provisions of the Act. The LVT upheld that complaint.

The Lands Tribunal of the Upper Chamber examined each of the breaches and found, with one exception, that the breaches had not prejudiced the tenants to any significant extent. However, it agreed that the curtailment of the period within which the tenants could examine the estimates was capable of being a serious breach. The final words of the judgment are interesting: “we are unable to say that LVT has erred in principle, or that its decision was clearly wrong. The financial consequence may be thought disproportionately damaging to the landlord, and disproportionately advantageous to the lessees, but, as we have said, that is the effect of the legislation.”

It could be inferred that the Upper Chamber felt that the decision was wrong, but not ‘clearly wrong’, and on that technicality Daejan was only able to recover £250 from the five leaseholders, rather than £270,000.

So, a rather expensive mistake. And a salutary lesson that, if there is a clear set of rules, stick to ‘em!

Field Fisher Waterhouse also wrote about the same case

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Service charge specialists for commercial and residential property

London 020 7935 1603
Birmingham 0121 262 3733