County court finds that Section 47 LTA does not apply to leaseholds?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    County court finds that Section 47 LTA does not apply to leaseholds?

    I'm a leaseholder in England. I defended a service charge bill based on the fact that the payment demand did not have a landlord's address. The court found that it doesn't apply to my leasehold since "tenancy" rather than lease in specifically mentioned in sub-section 4.

    It seems contrary to all the advice to L's on the internet. Is that advice wrong or did the Court miss something?

    #2
    The Court made a poor decision. Although you would have been better submitting reference cases with your evidence.
    I accept no legal responsibility for comments/advice I make on this forum. Please check with a solicitor before acting on statements made in a public forum.

    Comment


      #3
      In retrospect yes, I expected it to be a quick case since everybody seems to be so clear on the matter. Out of interest what are the rough costs of appealing it and what's the success chance?

      Comment


        #4
        I can't answer that. Perhaps somebody else will help with that. Speaking as somebody who has never appealed a decision I would say you should win the appeal providing you made your argument clear in the first case. Again, I would imagine you would just have to send a reference case when asking for leave to appeal.

        I would take proper advice on this though.
        I accept no legal responsibility for comments/advice I make on this forum. Please check with a solicitor before acting on statements made in a public forum.

        Comment


          #5
          Judges often do make stupid decisons.

          It would appear to be completely wrong and that he is misreading the use of tenancy, you are a tenant whether its short term or long (as in a long leasehold).

          There must be some higher court decisions you can refer to, heres one - http://www.landstribunal.gov.uk/judg...RX-59-2011.pdf, this case makes it clear when it comments "Subsection (4) provides that in this section “demand” means a demand for rent or other sums payable to the landlord under the terms of the tenancy (including, therefore, a service charge)."

          I've appealed LVT to Lands Tribunal which wasnt that exensive (although I was unemployed at time so didnt have to pay) but not County Court.

          Im not sure on the appeal process but i believe it is relatively simple, was it a simply small claims county court case ?, was no application made to transfer it to LVT ?

          I would of thought it certainly would be worth considering appealing, although may depend on what the value of the case is.

          Andy
          Advice given is based on my experience representing myself as a leaseholder both in the County Court and at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.

          I do not accept any liability to you in relation to the advice given.

          It is always recommended you seek further advice from a solicitor or legal expert.

          Always read your lease first, it is the legally binding contract between leaseholder and freeholder.

          Comment


            #6
            The Judge is a donut; the CC has wide jurisdiction and there is always a chance that the Judge that sits may have long forgotten housing law dealing with family matters.

            Appeals are expensive and easily run into 4 or 5 figures and while the manifest donutiness of the decision is evident, any award for costs is going to be well short of real costs.

            Unless you lost entirely and now have a ccj the easiest remedy is to challenge the next bill on the same basis and do your research, failing that bludgeon them with the LPA 1925 screaming as you are led to cells

            "There are only two interests in land fee simple and term absolute anything else is an equitable interest you dozy !"£$%£"
            Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by andydd View Post
              .

              There must be some higher court decisions you can refer to, heres one - http://www.landstribunal.gov.uk/judg...RX-59-2011.pdf, this case makes it clear when it comments "Subsection (4) provides that in this section “demand” means a demand for rent or other sums payable to the landlord under the terms of the tenancy (including, therefore, a service charge)."
              Just refer them to the green book that they have on the desk that defines a tenancy or Woodfalls- even a copy of the RICS acop
              Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

              Comment


                #8
                Why so expensive ?. Are you refering to Solicitors costs ?. Surely as an LiP it could be done for a reasonable cost.

                Appael CPR Stuff is here > http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...l/rules/part52

                And the Practise Direction > http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...rt52#id3585956

                And the form > http://www.insidetime.org/resources/...urtService.pdf

                Andy
                Advice given is based on my experience representing myself as a leaseholder both in the County Court and at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.

                I do not accept any liability to you in relation to the advice given.

                It is always recommended you seek further advice from a solicitor or legal expert.

                Always read your lease first, it is the legally binding contract between leaseholder and freeholder.

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X