SERVICE CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
10th October, 2013
On 6 March 2013, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of Case of Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and by a majority overturned the earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal and tribunals.
In doing so, it set out some of the key principles to be applied when considering applications for dispensation from statutory consultation with leaseholders in residential service charge cases.
Daejan Investments Ltd (the Landlord) which owned the freehold of a block of shops and flats gave notice to the long leaseholders of the flats that it intended to carry out major works and sought to recover just under £280,000 from the tenants in relation to those works. However, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) found the landlord had not complied properly with the statutory consultation requirements under s20ZA(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and accordingly reduced the tenants’ liability to £250 each.
During the LVT proceedings, the Landlord applied for dispensation from compliance and offered a £50,000 reduction to the £280,000 cost of works. The LVT regarded the Landlord’s failure as a serious breach which would cause prejudice to the tenants and refused dispensation. The Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal agreed with this refusal.
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court granted the Landlord dispensation from the requirements on terms that the tenant’s aggregate liability for the works be reduced by £50,000 and that the landlord pay the tenants’ reasonable costs in relation to proceedings before the LVT.
In overturning the previous decisions, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had placed undue emphasis on the Landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements. The purpose of the consultations is to protect tenants in relation to service charges from paying inappropriate or over the odds for works. As such, the correct legal test when considering if dispensation should be granted is whether the tenants would suffer any relevant prejudice.
Importantly, the Supreme Court held that the LVT:
• Has a discretion to grant partial dispensation on appropriate terms from the consultation requirements including the imposition of conditions,
• Has the power to reduce the amount that a landlord can recover via the service charge to compensate fully for the relevant prejudice,
• Can, and normally should, order a landlord to pay the tenants’ reasonable legal costs in respect of the dispensation application.
The reasoning applied indicates that the courts should seek to strike a fair balance between protecting the tenants’ rights to exercise the power yet not receive a windfall and ensuring that landlords do are not cavalier in adhering to the requirements.
On 9 September 2013 the Supreme Court made an order in the case of Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson following on from its earlier decision. The form of order is likely to be used by parties and tribunals as a precedent as to how to give effect to decisions granting dispensation on conditions.
We look at the change of use provisions from offices to residential under planning laws.
For further information please contact:
Stephanie Brayshay, Solicitor, on 01244 405417 or email [email protected]
You might also be interested in...
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 »
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 »
11th April, 2018
Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner comments on the recent case of Mr A M Coletta v Bath Hill Court – Bournemouth Property Management Ltd UKEAT 0200 17 RN To read the Transcript of Proceedings in full please click here “This case highlights an important aspect of the Statute of Limitations which affects a wider field than employment claims. An... Read More »