Case Law

A freehold owner of a development, which included a leisure centre, was a held to be a “service provider” in respect of its management of the leisure centre for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. It therefore followed that the reasonable adjustments which were required to facilitate a disabled lessee’s use of the leisure centre extended to making physical alterations (stair lift, hand rails, shower seat and lino flooring).

The UT held that where a tenant has been paying for the provision of services by the landlord, in circumstances in which the services are not set out in the lease, the tenant will be estopped from denying his liability to pay for them. However, the estoppel comes to an end when the provision of services comes to an end.

The UT comprised of Holgate J and HHJ Hodge QC (also sitting as County Court judges) gave valuable guidance concerning the importance of judges maintaining jurisdictional clarity and seperation when sitting as both FTT judges and County Court judges under the Residential Property Dispute Deployment Pilot.

The Upper Tribunal overturned a decision of the FTT that there had been no breach of the tenant’s lease by the making of a new hole in an external wall in order to install a soil pipe.

The Upper Tribunal considered the scope of the landlord’s disclosure obligations in a low-value claim and an appeal of an order debarring a tenant from taking part in a dispute before the FTT.

Substantial works of demolition and redevelopment to a building, which at the time may not constitute a “house” within the definition under the LRA 1967 are nonetheless capable of comprising improvements to be disregarded when determining the price a tenant should pay to enfranchise a house, as long as they were carried out by the tenant (or a predecessor) at their expense.

Where the tenant had paid service charges on account in the course of the service charge year, the landlord could not recover a deficit due after the year end in the absence of an accountant’s certificate complying with the terms of the lease

A decision concerning the premium payable for each of three blocks of flats in Eastbourne upon three collective enfranchisement claims and, in particular, the appropriate rate at which to capitalize the ground rent income.

Costs of over £97,000 had been incurred, and were continuing, in mounting a fire safety “waking watch”. This had been implemented following investigation of the external cladding of the building in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster. Such costs were payable by leaseholders under the terms of commonplace covenants and were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.

The Court of appeal emphatically upheld the Upper Tribunal guidance on the correct approach to determining relativity.

Summary

For the purposes of Section 20B(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) a relevant cost is incurred by an intermediate landlord when that intermediate landlord receives a demand from its own landlord in respect of services provided by it or a superior landlord. A residential tenant’s 18-month limitation period begins to run only when his or her immediate landlord receives a demand incurring the cost, not when the superior landlord providing the service originally incurs its own cost.

Summary

In a conflict between a clear scheme of covenants and complimentary service charge machinery, and ambiguous declarations as to the relationship between one of the parties to the lease and a third party, (both contained in the same lease) the scheme takes precedence and is binding on the parties – coherence trumps uncertainty where provisions are in conflict.