Chester 01244 405555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

Shrewsbury 01743 443 043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Manchester 0844 800 8346

Pall Mall Court
61-67 King Street
Manchester M2 4PD

Send us a message
Our Offices

Landlord Loses £270,000 Repair Bill Appeal

22nd August, 2011

Property company Daejan Investments Ltd. has failed in its bid to overturn Tribunal decisions concerning repair works carried out at the company’s Queens Mansions property in Muswell Hill, London. The recent Court of Appeal ruling will cost Daejan almost £270,000 in repairs that cannot be recharged to tenants.

The Court upheld decisions made by the Lands Tribunal and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal that Daejan had failed in its duty to engage in proper consultations with long leaseholders of apartments in Queens Mansions. It was further held that no dispensation order would be made under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. A dispensation order would have allowed Daejan to charge the full cost of the works to its leasehold tenants. The company is now only able to charge the statute-capped sum of £250 to each tenant.

Even though this left a bill of nearly £270,000 to be met by Daejan alone, the Court upheld the view that the financial consequences were irrelevant to the statutory requirement to consult on such matters. The statutory principle applied was that there is a clear duty for the landlords of long leasehold tenants to charge leaseholders only for maintenance and repairs that are reasonable and where the work is carried out to a reasonable standard. Before commencing the work, the landlord must give proper notice to tenants, obtain estimates of the cost of the work and allow leaseholders to make their own submissions and otherwise consult on the plans.

Lawyers for Daejan argued that the resulting cost to the company was unreasonable and that it should be granted a dispensation to allow it to follow the normal practice of charging the full cost of such works to its leaseholders. They argued that although consultation was indeed curtailed in error by Daejan, the leaseholders were not unduly prejudiced by the lack of proper consultation as the works were required and would have to have gone ahead regardless of any consultation. The Court disagreed and the appeal was dismissed.

“This case illustrates that the courts will uphold the statutory requirement for consultation in such cases,” says Giles Williams, Solicitor at Aaron & Partners LLP. “In this instance, the leaseholders have benefited considerably by the decision, at a substantial cost to the landlord. The decision further emphasises the need to ensure that correct legal procedures are applied when planning repair and maintenance works to properties.”

Contact Giles at [email protected] for commercial property matters and in particular commercial landlord and tenant enquires.

You might also be interested in...

Legal expert’s data protection workshops pull in the crowds

22nd May, 2018

With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) coming into force in May, businesses across Shropshire have been flocking to hear more about the new laws Paul Bennett, a partner at law firm Aaron & Partners LLP, has been delivering seminars in partnership with the Shropshire Chamber of Commerce An employment solicitor from Shrewsbury is urging businesses across the... Read More »

Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP

15th May, 2018

Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP Law firm with offices in Chester and Shrewsbury appoints Kate Robertson to drive HR strategy for more than 120 staff and to support the company’s growth Chester law firm Aaron & Partners LLP has strengthened its senior leadership team with the appointment of an experienced human resources manager. Kate Robertson... Read More »

When you should NOT pay the bailiff…

24th April, 2018

Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner at Aaron & Partners LLP, shares her experience and the reasons why we should be cautious before paying so-called “bailiffs” over the phone or online without vetting them first. My neighbour has told me that recently he had a CCJ (County Court Judgment) against him. A day or so later, he received a phone call... Read More »

Contact Us