Category: Landlord and Tenant

Post Box Ground Rents Ltd v The Post Box RTM Company Ltd: UTLC 1 Jun 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – right to manage – costs – whether RTM company liable for costs of proceedings where application to tribunal withdrawn – ss.88-89 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – whether withdrawal of application effective to terminate proceedings where no dismissal – appeal allowed

[2015] UKUT 230 (LC) (LC)
Bailii
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 88 89
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.548091

Caribax Ltd v Hinde House Management Company Ltd: UTLC 4 Jun 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – construction of provisions of lease – landlord fails to establish specially designated trust fund as required by lease – whether landlord obliged to pay for repairs from reserve fund – tenants’ appeal allowed – whether order under section 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 should be made in respect of costs before Ft T and/or before UT

[2015] UKUT 234 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27A
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.548089

Rossman v The Crown Estate Commissioners: UTLC 3 Jun 2015

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – Flat – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 – grant of new lease – section 57(6) – modification of term of existing lease – lessee’s liability to service charge contribution on fixed percentage basis

[2015] UKUT 288 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.548092

Oliver v Sheffield City Council: UTLC 21 May 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – whether major works of improvement reasonable or patch repair sufficient – whether cost of re-cladding reasonably incurred – whether CESP Funding to be credited to leaseholders – sufficiency of reasons – appeal allowed in part

[2015] UKUT 229 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547224

Tedla v Cameret Court Residents Association Ltd: UTLC 20 May 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – scope of compromise agreed in correspondence – identity of landlord – validity of service charge demands – section 47, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – appeal allowed in part

[2015] UKUT 221 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 47
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547226

Union Pension Trustees Ltd and Another v Slavin: UTLC 11 May 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – SERVICE CHARGES – evidence required to prove expenditure incurred – whether costs of previous tribunal proceedings recoverable as ‘any other costs and expenses reasonably and properly incurred’ – appeal allowed in part

[2015] UKUT 103 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547228

Ashleigh Court Right To Manage Company Ltd v De-Nuccio and Others: UTLC 20 May 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – sections 19, 20, Schedule 4 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – compliance with consultation requirements – whether place and hours estimates made available for inspection is reasonable – whether specific service charges reasonably incurred – landlord’s appeal dismissed

[2015] UKUT 258 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19 20
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547223

Dealmore Ltd v Jones: UTLC 16 Oct 2012

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – application under section 27A(3) of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – whether adequate specification of proposed works – tender process – whether proposed works reasonable – whether consultation requirements satisfied – appeal allowed

[2012] UKUT 317 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27A(3)
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547138

Union Pension Trustees Ltd v Slavin: UTLC 11 May 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – SERVICE CHARGES – evidence required to prove expenditure incurred – whether costs of previous tribunal proceedings recoverable as ‘any other costs and expenses reasonably and properly incurred’ – appeal allowed in part

[2015] UKUT 103 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547137

Kensquare Ltd v Boakye: CA 22 Nov 2021

Appeal from a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) concerning service and administration charges under a lease; specifically, issues as to (a) whether time is of the essence in relation to the lease’s interim service charge provisions and (b) whether the landlord can recover by way of service or administration charges costs it has incurred in litigation with the tenant.

Lord Justice Newey
[2021] EWCA Civ 1725
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.670060

Curzon v Wolstenholme and Others: UTLC 15 Apr 2015

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – initial notice not registered against freehold title – freehold transferred by registered proprietor to his wife and subsequently transferred back to him – whether initial notice ceased to have effect – price agreed unconditionally – whether open to reversioner to resile from agreement before all other terms finally agreed or determined – ss. 13(11), 24 and 97, Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKUT 0173 (LC)
Bailii
Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 13(11) 24 97
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546179

Waaler v The London Borough of Hounslow: UTLC 24 Mar 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – major works – repairs and improvements – application of section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to improvements – relevance of financial impact of service charge costs on leaseholders – appeal allowed in part.

[2015] UKUT 0188 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546177

Cain v London Borough of Islington: UTLC 26 Mar 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – apportionment by rateable value – whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider question of construction of lease after agreement reached on quantum of service charge payable – para. 3, Sch. 12, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – s.27A(4), Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – appeal allowed

[2015] UKUT 117 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27A(4), Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546174

Roberts and Another v Fernandez: UTLC 23 Mar 2015

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – flat – capitalisation rate – deferment rate – relativity – whether adjustments to be made to freehold value and marriage value calculation to reflect allegedly onerous rent and lease terms – appeal dismissed

Behrens HHJ
[2015] UKUT 106 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544732

Pendra Loweth Management Ltd v North: UTLC 19 Mar 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – estimated charges – management company failing to prepare audited services charge accounts and relying on company accounts and budgets when estimating sums payable – whether demands compliant with terms of lease – s. 47, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – service charges payable to management company – whether failure to include name of landlord in demands rendered sums payable to management company not due – appeal allowed.

[2015] UKUT 91 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 47
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544731

Sennadine Properties Ltd v Heelis: UTLC 23 Feb 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – appointment of manager – whether refusal to postpone hearing unfair – whether appropriate tribunal may confer power for manager to disclaim lease of commercial premises — s. 24, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – appeal allowed in part

[2015] UKUT 55 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 24
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543486

Hyslop v 38/41 CHG Residents Company Ltd: UTLC 16 Feb 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – whether LVT order that fees be reimbursed was lawful – no obligation on LVT to enquire whether the appellant was in receipt of a qualifying benefit – regs 8 and 9 Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (Fees) England Regulations 2003 – First Tier Tribunal entitled to conclude there was no procedural irregularity for the purposes of rule 51(2)(d) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

[2015] UKUT 46 (LC)
Bailii
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 51(2)(d), Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (Fees) England Regulations 2003 8 9
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543484

Obichukwu v London Borough of Enfield: UTLC 16 Feb 2015

UTLC COMPENSATION – PRELIMINARY ISSUE – lease of commercial premises granted by Acquiring Authority – negotiations for surrender of lease – lessee returning keys to premises before CPO confirmed or negotiations concluded – expectation of further negotiations to settle compensation – surrender by operation of law – whether legitimate expectation of compensation

[2015] UKUT 64 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543485

Caddick v Whitsand Bay Holiday Park Ltd: UTLC 16 Feb 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – Service Charges -Sections 18, 27A and 38 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – jurisdiction – First-tier Tribunal striking out as abuse – issue previously decided – appeal – whether a ‘lodge’ is a ‘dwelling’ within section 18(1) and a ‘building’ within section 38 -appeal dismissed – observations on meaning of ‘building’ – matter of fact and degree

[2015] UKUT 63 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 18 27A 38
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543482

Jephson Homes Housing Association v Moisejevs and Another: CA 1 Nov 2000

A possession warrant, properly issued and executed in ignorance of a payment into court by the tenant was not an abuse of process. The tenant had paid funds into court in the mistaken belief that this would be effective to set aside the warrant. She was assisted in this misapprehension neither by the Court nor by the landlord. Their behaviour could not properly be described as oppressive. It was not clear, in this context, what was meant by ‘oppressive’. The applicant had not in this case been misled. Once it is concluded that there is no oppression, there is no inherent power in the court to set aside the eviction. The Rules did not require notice to be given of an intention to aply for a warrant for possession. Though a failure to give notice might be oppressive conduct, it was not in this case.

Lord Justice Simon Brown And Lord Justice Rix
Times 02-Jan-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 271, [2001] 23 EGLR 14, [2001] 41 EG 186, [2001] 2 All ER 901
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Camden v Akanni CA 31-Jan-1997
The context in which the court is willing in a rare, but appropriate, case to intervene to nullify the execution of a warrant for possession goes back to the principles set out in McHenry v Lewis. . .
Cited – McHenry v Lewis 1888
Bowen LJ said: ‘I would much rather rest on the general principle that the Court can and will interfere whenever there is a vexation and oppression to prevent the administration of justice being perverted for an unjust end. I would rather do that . .
Cited – Leicester City Council v Aldwinckle CA 1991
A tenant was evicted while absent from the premises for some months through illness and who, following her breach of the suspended possession order, received no notice whatever either of the council’s application for a warrant, or of the issue of . .
Cited – Beale v MacGregor 1886
The court has an inherent power to prevent the abuse of proceedings and to avoid oppression. . .
Cited – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Hill CA 25-Apr-1994
A possession warrant issued under a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house may not be set aside after its execution, unless the possession order itself was set aside for example as having been obtained by fraud. If a possession order has been made, . .
Cited – Lambeth London Borough Council v Hughes CA 8-May-2000
The tenant had been misled both by the respondent Council and by the court.
Held: (Waller LJ) ‘Mr Hughes has made out a case that he received misleading advice from the court. He has also made out a case that he was misled as to the procedures . .
Cited – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Lemeh CA 3-Apr-2000
The court noted that there was no reported case in which it had actually been decided ‘that oppression can include oppression caused by misleading information given by the court office’, and continued: ‘In principle, I am unable to see why . .
Cited – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Saint CA 21-Aug-1998
The council requested a warrant for possession be issued on the basis of certified arrears of pounds 333 when they were in breach of their statutory duty to assist the tenant in his claim for housing benefit and save for pounds 28, were relying on . .
Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Sarfo CA 19-Jul-1999
The tenant sought to set aside a warrant for possession after it had been executed.
Held: The tenant would have succeeded in setting aside the execution of the possession warrant but for her delay in applying to the court and the fact that by . .
Cited – Peachey Property Corporation Limited v Robinson 1967
The High Court and County Court rules differ in their ability to give a default judgment for possession of a residential property as against a tenant. . .
Cited – Fleet Mortgage and Investment Company Limited v Lower Maisonette 1972
Natural justice required the High Court Rules to be construed as requiring the tenant to be given notice of the landlord’s application for leave to issue a writ of execution following an alleged breach of a conditional possession order. . .
Cited – Regina v Bloomsbury and Marylebone County Court ex parte Villerwest Limited 1976
Lord Denning said that every Court has inherent power to control its own procedure, even though there is nothing in the rules about it, and ‘Suppose a man is on his way to the court in time with the money in his pocket. Then he is run down in an . .
Cited – Rolph v Zolan CA 7-May-1993
Postal service at the last known address within the jurisdiction is valid even though the defendant was known to be abroad. The summons was then posted on to him abroad and was properly served under County Court Rules 1981. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ellis v Circle 33 Housing Trust Ltd CA 23-Sep-2005
The housing association obtained a possession order for rent arrears. The tenant had not attended, and had taken no steps in the matter. The association had corresponded with the housing benefit department of the local authority which had said that . .
Cited – Pritchard and Others v Teitelbaum and Others ChD 20-Apr-2011
The claimants sought orders allowing them to re-enter the tenanted properties after eviction in order to allow them recover their possessions left behind. Proceedings for recovery of possession had continued over several years.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.147304

Midland Heart Ltd v Idawah: Misc 11 Jul 2014

Birmingham County Court – appeal against the order asking whether the decision of the district judge to permit the defendant tenant to file and serve a counterclaim for disrepair was wrong, either because he erred in law or because he erred in the exercise of his discretion.

David Grant HHJ
[2014] EW Misc B48
Bailii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542747

Eaglesham Properties Ltd v Leaseholders of Drysdale Dwellings and Others: UTLC 16 Jan 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – appointment of manager – proper construction of order appointing the manager – whether First Tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to interpret the order – whether manager entitled to recover service charges from the lessor in respect of flats not let on long leases – First Tier Tribunal correctly held the manager was entitled to recovery service charges from the lessor pursuant to the order appointing him

[2015] UKUT 22 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542516

Norwich City Counci v Redford: UTLC 26 Jan 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – whether lessor entitled to apportion the cost of a city-wide maintenance contract for communal lighting to the lessees’ estate by rateable value – First Tier Tribunal correctly construed the lease as requiring the lessor to identify actual expenditure on the estate – appeal dismissed – sections 19 and 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

[2015] UKUT 30 (LC)
Bailii
andlord and Tenant Act 1985 19 27A
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542520

Columbia House Properties (No3) Ltd v Imperial Hall Freehold Ltd: UTLC 3 Feb 2015

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – costs – whether freeholder can recover costs of managing agent in addition to those of solicitors and valuers in dealing with an enfranchisement notice – appeal allowed – First Tier Tribunal wrongly disallowed managing agents costs on the grounds the work could have been done by the freeholder without considering reasonableness – no reasons given for rejecting the costs as involving duplication or falling outside the statute – s.33 Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

[2015] UKUT 45 (LC)
Bailii
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 33
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542524

Zambra Investments Ltd v Ellis: UTLC 26 Jan 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – whether insurance premium charged is reasonable – First Tier Tribunal failed to have regard to fact the sum insured in lessee’s alternative quotations was not comparable – sections 19 and 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

[2015] UKUT 31 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19 27A
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542523

Waaler v London Borough of Hounslow: UTLC 28 Jan 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – major works – repairs and improvements – application of section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to improvements – relevance of financial impact of service charge costs on leaseholders – appeal allowed in part.

[2015] UKUT 17 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542522

Rosslyn Mansions Tenants’ Association v Winstonworth Ltd: UTLC 12 Jan 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges — application to First-tier Tribunal for certificate of recognition in respect of a tenants’ association — Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 29 — proper approach by First-tier Tribunal to such an application

[2015] UKUT 11 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 29
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542521

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Singh: CA 1991

The Local Authority were lessees of some 500 square metres of public open space at St. Johns Hill in Wandsworth, which they and their horticultural sub-contractors visited periodically. It had been used by local inhabitants for leisure and recreation.
Held: The use was sufficient to constitute occupation: ‘The concept [of sufficiency of physical presence and of use] was whether the occupation of the premises by the tenant were shown to be such as Parliament tended to be covered by the words used in s.23(1) and (2).’
Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘If it is shown that the tenant, having possession of the premises and having given to no person the right to exclude the tenant from any part of the premises or to limit the tenant’s access thereto, is by himself, his servants or agents physically present on the premises to such extent and exercising control of them to such extent as would reasonably be expected having regard to the nature of the premises and the terms of the tenancy, and is so present and exercising control for the purposes of the business or activity carried on by the tenant, then for my part it would seem likely at least that an observer, knowing the facts and applying the ordinary and popular meaning of the phrase ‘occupation for the purposes of a business or activity’, would hold that tenant to be in occupation.
I accept, of course, that a tenant who has a right to possession may choose not to go into actual occupation, and, as set out above, the authorities show that ‘occupation’ for the purposes of section 23 means actual occupation in the popular sense of that word. But if, as is clear from Eveleigh LJ’s judgment in Hancock and Willis v GMS Syndicate, the physical occupation need not be continuous provided the right to occupy continues, then the sort of occupation to which I have referred should in most cases qualify.
That which is a minimum sufficiency of physical presence or control cannot, in my view, be determined by the court independently of the facts of a particular case by reference to the number of visits per day or per week or per month. When the facts of a particular case are regarded, as they must be, I can see no standard for the judgment of the minimum sufficiency of physical presence or control in a case where there are no subtenants or licensees competing for the role of occupier other than that established by the nature of the premises in question regarded in the light of the statutory purpose, which is to enable tenants occupying property for business purposes to obtain new tenancies in certain cases, as enlarged by the provision to include an activity carried out by a body of persons.’ and
‘. . . this was not a borderline case but a clear case. The council were physically present upon and exercised control over the piece of land by their servants or agents at least as much as would, in my judgment, be reasonably expected by the parties to the lease when it was made. If the ordinary man, knowing the facts, were asked: ‘Who is in occupation of this open space?’, I have no doubt whatever that, applying the ordinary and popular meaning of the word, he would answer ‘The council is’. No one else is. The council is there, as necessary, to do all that is required to maintain the place in decent order for use by the public.’

Ralph Gibson LJ
[1991] 89 LGR 75
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 23
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Graysim Holdings Ltd v P and O Property Holdings Ltd HL 24-Nov-1995
A market hall had been let to a tenant under a lease. The tenant fitted out the entire hall with stalls and entered into agreements with the stallholders, by which they paid the tenant a rent and service charge for services provided by the tenant. . .
Cited – Bacchiocchi v Academic Agency Limited CA 20-Feb-1998
The ‘continuous occupation’ required of a tenant to support a claim for disturbance on the non-renewal of his lease under the Act is not to be lost for the normal incidents of business life. The tenant had anticipated the non-renewal of the tenancy . .
Cited – Clear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 14-Oct-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that it had a tenancy for its occupation by an advertising station, and that it had protection under the 1954 Act. The defendant council said that only a licence had been granted.
Held: The grants included the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.216543