Industry comment, updates and news from the Websters team.
Practical Law notes that, in Blackpool Borough Council and others v Cargill [2013] UKUT 0377 (LC), the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) held that a landlord had not acted unreasonably pursuant to section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 where it had recovered from each tenant the same amount in respect of a global management charge via the service charge.
Read the full article here
An article in Inside Housing explains how Sutton Council corrected the service charge proportions in the leases of an estate, where some tenants had been paying slightly different amounts of service charge, which became critical when the social landlord proposed refurbishing the estate. Before the 1987 Landlord and Tenant Act, the only way to correct a mistake was if someone had acted fraudulently or where the document did not give effect to what the parties had intended. Part 4 of the Act now allows either a landlord or a leaseholder to apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal to correct such problems by varying the lease and this is what Sutton Council did successfully.
Read the full article here
Elisons has reported that, in Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and another [2013] EWHC 1279 (Ch), where the tenant exercised a break clause part-way through a quarter, having paid the rent for the full quarter, the High Court implied a term into the lease entitling the tenant to a repayment of the rent from the break date to the end of the quarter. This decision is a departure from the widely-accepted view that, in the absence of an express provision in the lease, a tenant will not be entitled to a refund of any rent paid that relates to the period after a break date.
Read the full article here
In a recent update, Optima Legal reported the case of OM Property Management Limited v Burr. OM had mistakenly paid EDF Energy for gas and EDF Energy passed this on to the correct supplier, Total Energy . However, there was still a shortfall in the region of £100,000. This sum was put through the service charge and demanded from the tenants. One of the tenants claimed that as the costs had been ‘incurred’ more than 18 months before the service charges demand had been sent and were therefore irrecoverable. A Leasehold Valuation Tribunal agreed with him but the Upper Tribunal overturned that decision, as it decided that the cost for the fuel had not been incurred until the supplier had presented its bill. The Court of Appeal dismissed the tenant’s appeal,stating that the Upper Tribunal was correct that a cost became incurred on the presentation of an invoice or when it is paid (by the landlord).
Read the full article here
We reported earlier that, in the case of Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson, the Court of Appeal had denied a landlord dispensation from observing service charge consultation requirements. He had failed to comply with all stages of the requirements by not providing the tenants with a summary of observations on the estimates and a notice of where they would be available for inspection. However, Chris George, of Shoosmiths, has reported that these findings have been reversed by the Supreme Court.
Read the full article here
Emma Lunn reports in This is Money that many people with landlord insurance may be disappointed to find that unpaid rent isn’t covered. In most cases it only reimburses lost rent for periods when a property is uninhabitable because of another insured event such as a fire. Therefore landlords need specialist rent guarantee protection but there are many caveats.
Read the full article here
In Manches News & Publications it is pointed out that tenants who have exercised a break right often object to paying a whole quarter’s rent for a period of time that extends beyond the break date, where that date occurs mid-quarter. However, they should be far more concerned about the alternative scenario, namely remaining on the hook for the rent and all the other lease obligations for the rest of the term, as a result of trying to save relatively small amounts of money.
Read the full article here
In an article by Clyde & Co, the recent case of ANSA Logistics Ltd v Towerberg Ltd considered a common tenant’s covenant: “Not to assign, underlet or part with
possession of the demised premises or any part thereof without the previous
consent of the landlord, which consent shall not be reasonably withheld.”
ANSA approached the landlord in November 2011 to
ask for consent to underlet but the landlord refused. The landlord
also served a notice on ANSA forfeiting the lease for breach of
the alienation covenant. ANSA applied to the High Court for a
declaration, and the Court considered two questions:
–– Had ANSA parted with possession; and
––Was it reasonable for the landlord to withhold consent?
Firstly the Court decided that ANSA had not parted with
possession and so had not breached the covenant.
The landlord then gave a further reason for withholding
consent concerning Ford’s financial standing. The
Court found this to be unreasonable as only 11% of companies had a lower risk of failure at that time.
Read the full article here
Camden Council leaseholder tenants may not have been charged for service charge works carried out via district (housing) management committee’s since at least 2001.
Read the full article here
Russell-Cooke has highlighted a recent court case that could cause turmoil for those who manage residential service charge property
It is well known that landlords of residential properties are required to consult with lessees prior to committing to works where expenditure would result in any lessee paying more than £250 and the common understanding was that low cost, low key works did not require prior consultation. In an attempt to avoid what was sometimes perceived as being the tiresome, time consuming and costly exercise of consulting, landlords would sometimes split the cost into separate projects, each of which would be low enough not to trigger the consultation requirements. However, in the case of Phillips v Francis, it was decided that works should not be split, but treated collectively over the service charge year. However the small print of the decision needs to be examined……………
Read the full article here
