Category: Landlord and Tenant

240A Station Road – Barnet : London: LVT 15 Feb 2011

Service Charges

Citations:

[2011] EWLVT LON – LV – SVC – 00AC – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – 240A Station Road – Barnet : London LVT 26-Jul-2011
Service Charges . .
See Also – 240A Station Road – Barnet : London LVT 23-Nov-2017
Service Charges . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440913

Cadogan v Erkman: UTLC 11 Apr 2011

UTLC LEASEHOLD REFORM – collective enfranchisement – terms of acquisition – assessment of valuation evidence and of comparables – whether additional value arising from possibility of amalgamating ground/lower ground floor flat with caretaker’s flat – whether any hope value in respect of a flat whose tenant was neither a participating tenant nor a tenant who had served a section 42 notice – relationship between value of freehold and of long leases – form of the covenant restrictive of user which should be imposed.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 90 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440782

Jean-Paul v London Borough of Southwark: UTLC 9 May 2011

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – major works contract – costs incurred more than 18 months previously – whether notification given to tenant within that period – held it had been- appeal dismissed – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s 20B

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 178 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440788

Themeline Ltd v Vowden Investments Ltd: UTLC 20 Apr 2011

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – terms of contract – whether term requiring transfer of property in same physical state as at the date of valuation should be imposed – held it should not – intermediate leasehold interest – whether owner entitled to share in marriage value – held it was – whether enhancement of value of property through prospective grant of lease of whole to participating tenant could be taken into account in assessing marriage value – held it could not – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Sch 6, para 4(2).

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 168 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440786

Midland Freeholds Ltd, Re: 44 Lomas Drive: UTLC 5 May 2011

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – maisonette – premium – deferment rate – whether LVT entitled to adjust deferment rate to reflect location in absence of any supporting evidence – held it was not – appeal allowed – deferment rate reduced from 6.0% to 5.75%.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 173 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440789

Cadogan v Cadogan Square Properties Ltd: UTLC 16 Feb 2011

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – premium payable – power of Upper Tribunal to correct a clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission by the LVT – whether in determining the terms of acquisition under Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 the Tribunal has power to order the inclusion of a term in the transfer which would involve the price payable being recalculated in the event of a particular decision being reached in a potential appeal in another case.

Judges:

Judge Nicholas Huskinson

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 68 (LC), [2011] RVR 115

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440770

Sheldon Square Residents Association v St George North London Ltd: UTLC 20 Jan 2011

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – building estate costs – whether recoverable from underlessees – construction of lease – principles of construction to be applied – held costs recoverable – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 13 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440769

Cadogan and Another v Cadogan Square Ltd: UTLC 21 Apr 2011

UTLC LEASEHOLD REFORM – collective enfranchisement – price payable – whether hope value in respect of non-participating flats including caretaker’s flat – relativity – use of graphs or adjustment to market comparables to allow for benefit of Act – effect of user restriction upon rental value of caretaker’s flat – assessment of valuation evidence and of comparables – meaning of ‘taking into account’ a section 42 notice served by a non-participating tenant – form of the covenant restrictive of user which should be imposed – meaning of ‘participating tenant’ for purposes of marriage value – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Sch 6 paras 3 and 4.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 154 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440781

Ember Homes Ltd v Lucas: UTLC 28 Jan 2011

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – LVT holding service charges irrecoverable by reason of landlord’s failure to comply with provisions of lease and under statutory provisions – LVT failing to make findings as to reasonableness of costs – appeal allowed – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ss 20B, 27A

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 42 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20B 27A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440766

Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi and Another: CA 19 May 2011

Gladehurst had let the property to the two tenants under an assured shorthold tenancy. They paid a deposit, which it retained and never paid into the deposit scheme. The tenancy came to an end when the tenants vacated the property, after which deductions from the deposit were made for breaches of the cleaning and repairing covenants, with the balance then being repaid to the tenants via a bank transfer. The tenants then brought a s.214(4) claim for payment of the penal sum, the landlord having failed to comply with the relevant statutory provisions in respect of their deposit. The tenants’ claim was struck out by the District Judge on the basis that it had been made after the tenancy had come to an end and that the provisions of s.214(4) no longer applied. HH Judge Cryan allowed their appeal and restored the claim. Gladehurst now appealed. The main issue on appeal was whether, in those circumstances, the tenants were entitled to an order for payment of the penal sum under s.214(4) following the landlord’s failure to register their deposit or to pay it into the deposit scheme.
Held: The power of the Court to make an order under s.214(3) and (4) is no longer exercisable once the tenancy has come to an end. The District Judge was right to reject the tenants’ s.214(4) claim.
Patten LJ said: ‘The point is not an easy one but I have come to the conclusion that the power of the Court to make an order under s.214(3) and (4) is no longer exercisable once the tenancy has come to an end. Although s.213 makes it unlawful for a landlord to require the payment of a deposit which is not to be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme and requires the landlord within 14 days of receipt of a deposit to comply with the initial requirements of such a scheme, it is important to note that no criminal penalty is imposed for non-compliance with these provisions. Instead, they are made enforceable at the option of the tenant under s.214. It is entirely a matter for him as to whether he chooses to take advantage of the provisions in s.213 which were created for his benefit.
The answer therefore to the argument that the construction of s.214 contended for by Gladehurst will encourage landlords not to comply with their legal obligations under s.213 is the same as applies to any breach by a landlord of its covenants or other obligations under the lease. The tenant always has it within his hands to secure their enforcement by the taking of proceedings. That is the remedy prescribed by s.214 of the Act and it is up to the tenant to make use of it.
Looked at in this way it is entirely understandable if some temporal limits apply to the exercise of the right of enforcement under s.214. The initial requirements of an authorised scheme are, as Mr Gannon submitted, matters to be dealt with at the inception of the lease and not later than the expiry of the term. Section 214(1), as interpreted in Tiensia, speaks in terms of these requirements not yet having been complied with and therefore carries the strong implication that the default can still be remedied. This impression is confirmed by s.214(3) which requires the Court either to order the repayment of the deposit to the applicant or to order the landlord to pay it into an authorised scheme. For the Court to have a genuine discretion to exercise both alternatives must be available. On the facts of this case, neither was. Although Judge Cryan treated the andpound;618 as part of the deposit retained by Gladehurst, it was artificial to do so. The tenants had agreed to Galdehurst retaining the andpound;618 pending the prosecution of their claim for its return which it was for them to pursue and make out. The retention was therefore consensual.
The issue raised by the landlord has also to be resolved in a case where the landlord has returned the entirety of the deposit on the termination of the lease. Mr Gannon accepted that if this were the case then no s.214 claim could be made. Section 214 envisages that it must still be open to the Court to make both a s.214(3) and a s.214(4) order. Where this is not the case neither applies.
But that argument would mean that a defaulting landlord who nevertheless was scrupulous in dealing with the deposit at the end of the lease would be in a worse position with a defaulting tenant than he would be with a tenant who observed his own covenants to the letter. If the landlord was able to refund the deposit in its entirety he would escape the consequences of s.214(4) but not if he had legitimate grounds for retaining part of it to pay for repairs.
Anomalies of this kind are avoided by reading s.214(1)(a) as meaning that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme have not been but are still capable of being complied with. This is consistent with the decision in Tiensia and is the only meaning which ties in with the two alternatives in s.214(3) continuing to be available. In practice, this means that the grounds for a s.214 application will cease to exist once the lease expires and no order under either s.214(3) or (4) can therefore be made after that date. From that moment on the application will cease to be ‘such an application’ as is described in s.214(2).’

Judges:

Carnwath, Patten LJJ, Baron J

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 604, [2011] 4 All ER 556, [2011] 2 P andCR DG17, [2011] 29 EG 90, [2011] HLR 36

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004 213 214(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (T/A Universal Estates) CA 11-Nov-2010
The court was asked whether, where a landlord had failed to comply with the requirement to place a deposit received with a tenancy deposit scheme within fourteen days, the tenant was entitled to the penalties imposed by the Act despite later . .

Cited by:

Cited – Suurpere v Nice and Another QBD 27-Jul-2011
The tenant appealed against refusal of her claim for damages under sections 213 and 214 of the 2004 Act, saying that the notice as to the protection of her deposit had been inadequate on the grant of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to her.
Held: . .
Cited – Kenny and Others v Abubaker and Others CA 23-Oct-2012
The defendant landlord sought to appeal against an order that he pay to the respondent tenants a penalty under the 2004 Act of three times the tenancy deposit. The court was now asked whether there was has any right to have set aside a judgment . .
Cited – Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues CA 14-Jun-2013
The Defendant took an assured shorthold tenancy of premises from the Claimant for a fixed term of one year less one day, paying a deposit of a month’s rent under the terms of the tenancy agreement at that time. At the expiry of the fixed term, by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440117

Kahlon v Isherwood: CA 19 May 2011

Tenant’s appeal against order for possession. The question arose wheher a noice remained defective even where the information omitted was known to the tenant. Patten LJ said: ‘Relevance or materiality has to be assessed by reference to the purpose of the notice. But where the provision in the prescribed form is clearly part of the substance of the notice as found in Manel v Memon it is no answer to its omission to say that the information it conveys was well known to the tenant at the relevant time.’

Judges:

Rix, Stanley Burnton, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 602, [2011] HLR 38

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Manel and Others v Memon CA 20-Apr-2000
A landlord gave notice to quit to a tenant subject to an assured shorthold tenancy.
Held: The notice did not include the instructions and advice required by the Regulations, and so could not be said to be substantially in the same form. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ayannuga v Swindells CA 6-Nov-2012
The tenant appealed against refusal of penalties impose for the non-securing of a tenants deposit. The deposit had been secured, and the court had found that the landlord had substantially complied with the notice requirements by matters in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440118

McDougalls Catering Foods Limited v BSE Trading Limited: CA 2 May 1997

The appellant had guaranteed the tenant’s obligations under an underlease. The tenant having become insolvent, the landlord sought to enforce the guarantee. The appellant said that the landlord had accepted a surrender of the underlease. The landlord had taken possession proceedings after the tenant had left and squatters had moved onto the land. The landlord also sought the cost of the possession proceedings.
Held: Where possession is unequivocally offered and retaken, it will, without more, be inequitable for the landlord to deny that the tenancy has ended, because he cannot at one and the same time have both possession and continuing rent under the tenancy. Aldous LJ said that the court’s task is to ascertain from all the facts whether the landlord’s conduct: ‘did in fact amount to an unequivocal acceptance of cessor of the tenancy such that it would be inequitable for the landlord to dispute that the tenancy ceased’.

Judges:

Aldous LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1616, [1998] 2 EGLR 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Artworld Financial Corporation v Safaryan and Others CA 27-Feb-2009
The parties disputed whether the landlord had accepted the surrender of a lease. The tenant had handed in the keys. The landlord claimed rent for the subsequent period. The court had found surrender by operation of law, the landlord taking several . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.142012