The Practical Lawyer

Home
About
CPD
Subscribe
Contact
Landlord and tenant – residential

Service charge – L’s name and address

Under s47 LTA 1987 a service charge demand will be invalid if it does not contain the name and address of L. But, failure to include L’s name and address is not a fatal error – the demand remains invalid until such time as the name and address are given, but once that information is provided the service charge will then become due.

Subscribers only...
 

Service charges – consultation with sub-Ts?

LTA 1987 requires L to consult with T in respect of ‘qualifying works’ or before entering into a ‘qualifying long-term agreement’.

Subscribers only...
 

Intermediate L – repair obligation?

Any residential L has an obligation ‘to keep and repair the structure and exterior of any part of the building in which L has an estate or interest’ (s11 LTA 1985).

But, how does this work in the context of an intermediate L (eg a buy-to-let investor who is T under a long lease of a flat, who then sub-lets to a short-term T under an assured shorthold tenancy)? The answer is that s11 applies to that intermediate L, to the extent that the intermediate L has an ‘estate or interest’ in the property. Thus, if the assured shorthold T is injured because of a defect in part of the premises in which the intermediate L has an ‘estate or interest’ then damages will be recoverable under s11; conversely, if the injury occurs on part of the premises in which the intermediate L does not have an ‘estate or interest’ then there will have been no breach of the statutory duty to repair. Instead, the assured shorthold T will have to rely upon the intermediate L having been given notice of the defect (which then puts the intermediate L on notice to repair the defect).

Subscribers only...
 

Lease extension – marriage value

If a long-lessee enfranchises under the 1993 Act, then there can be a collective acquisition of the freehold, or the grant of a lease extension for an additional 90 years. L will have to be paid a premium which will be a total of (i) the diminution in the value of L’s interest in the flat (and other losses), plus (ii) L’s share of the ‘marriage value’.
Subscribers only...
 

Repair – missing bannister

L’s obligation to ‘keep and repair the structure and exterior of the premises’ (s11 LTA 1985) is concerned only with repair. In a recent case, T fell from a staircase which did not have a bannister. But it was held there was no liability under s11 – because there had never been a bannister during the term of the tenancy, and to install a bannister would go beyond the scope of ‘repair’. Sternbaum v Dhesi [2016] EWCA Civ 155 (access free at www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk).
Subscribers only...
 

Long lease – no sub-letting?

It is not uncommon for a long lease to prohibit T from using the flat other than as a single private dwelling house in the occupation of T and their family. The Upper Tribunal has confirmed that this amounts to a prohibition on sub-letting (even if there is no express provision in the lease against sub-letting). Thus, long-lease covenants might prevent sub-letting even if there is no express bar on sub-letting.
Subscribers only...
 

Right to manage – redevelopment?

Suppose L wants to put a new flat on the top of an existing block of flats which is managed by a right to manage company.

If the right to manage has been exercised under CLRA 2002, then that company assumes the management functions in respect of the property (ie services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and management). Moreover, L is then prohibited from being involved in such activities (unless otherwise agreed by the RTM company). How do those rights stand when L wants to build a new flat on the roof and roof space which it owns? In particular, can the RTM company prevent L’s redevelopment?

Subscribers only...
 

Costs – First-Tier Tribunal

The tribunal can only make a costs order against someone who has acted ‘unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings’. But, what does ‘unreasonable’ mean?

The Upper Tribunal has now given guidance on this. In essence, it has adapted the criteria for deciding on wasted costs. The leading case on the award of wasted costs is Ridehalgh [1994] which gave guidance on ‘unreasonable’ being behaviour that goes beyond ‘reasonable explanation’. In practical terms, what this means is that a tribunal should ask itself whether a reasonable person, in the position of that party, would have conducted themselves in the manner that they did, or whether there is some other reasonable explanation for that conduct. Thus, this is an objective test. Having reached that objective decision, the second stage is for the tribunal to then consider how it should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, which requires it to have regard to ‘all the circumstances’ (and this will be when a more subjective approach is taken).

Subscribers only...
 

Possession – no human rights

The Supreme Court has held that the right of private residential Ls to recover possession of their properties under s21 HA 1988 is not affected by the ECHR. In the Supreme Court’s view ECHR is designed to protect citizens from having their rights infringed by the state, and not to alter private contractual rights. Thus, the court does not have to consider proportionality and whether granting possession would disproportionately interfere with T’s ‘rights to a home’ under Article 8. McDonald v McDonald [2016] UKSC 28.
Subscribers only...
 

Section 21 applications – errors

A note in the SJ summarises some of the more common errors made when lodging s21 applications with the county court:

Failure to include the full address of the claimant. This cannot be a c/o address, and it cannot be that of a letting agent or managing agent. The address must be one at which the claimant resides or carries on business (even if the claimant’s address for service is the business address of the solicitor). The address should include a full postcode.

Subscribers only...
 


Page 10 of 42

Most-read articles

Constructive trusts – property
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The author gives a helpful analysis of a ruling following a claim to establish a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel in respect of a domestic property. The deceased died intestate while living... Read more...
Professional negligence – adjudication
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The Professional Negligence Adjudication Scheme is run by the Professional Negligence Bar Association. It offers a voluntary ADR procedure, modelled on the adjudication system in construction... Read more...
Waste – L’s liability
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
Ls should be aware of the environmental enforcement obligations that may be incurred as a result of T’s activities. Read more...
Part 36 – late acceptance
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
If a Part 36 offer is accepted out of time (ie outside the 21 day period) in a low value protocol case, then what are the costs consequences? In particular, does late acceptance mean a liability to... Read more...
HMOs – new rules
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The definition of house in multiple occupation (HMO) changes on 1 October 2018. The new definition covers properties occupied by five or more people, comprising two or more separate households. Read more...
Energy efficiency – reassessment by T?
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The Energy Efficiency (MEES) Regs mean it is no longer possible to grant new leases to properties with an EPC of F or G. Moreover, existing lettings of F and G properties will become unlawful from... Read more...
Knotweed – nuisance
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
Last year, we had county court claims in Cardiff and Truro in which it was held that the encroachment of Japanese knotweed would be actionable as a ‘private nuisance’. The Cardiff cases have now... Read more...
Procedure – expert witnesses
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
Expert witnesses must comply with court rules and related guidance appropriate to their area of expertise. New guidance for paediatric expert witnesses in family proceedings has now been issued. Read more...
Self-employed – or worker?
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The Pimlico Plumbers case was seen as a victory for workers in the gig economy, with the Supreme Court looking at the reality of the relationship (rather than the legal labels attached). So, what... Read more...
Offences – mens rea
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
This was a pre-trial appeal of a ruling at a preparatory hearing. The two appellants (A) faced charges under s17 Terrorism Act 2000 of sending money overseas, or arranging to do so, knowing or having... Read more...

Resources

IAG International
In House Lawyer
Join the IBA now!
MSI Global Alliance
www.totallylegal.com