LVT - Decided

[JK0]

Reverse premium enfranchisement? Is that where the freeholder pays the lessees to take it off his hands? I like the sound of that.

[siva]

if the LL is prepared they would print it off and hand it to you there and then.

it snot simply full stop, they are faced with a bill which you are entitled by statute to withhold payment of. All they can do is say that the landhold cannot pursue the matter, but cannot say anything about the issues at all,or call an adjournment.

I have often wondered about this. I guess it depends on where the Judge sits on these formalities. In the CC case I was involved in the Judge was very strict on failure by the LL under s47 LTA 1987.

From memory (not always the best) I remember an LVT decision where they decided it was a breach of process to bring a CC case without the summary of rights/obligations (obviously it's not their decision). This was the famous case involving inclusion of the statutory instrument rather than the summary which the SI described. It went to appeal and the LT reproduced the LVT's opinion in regard to the abuse of process argument but didn't say whether they agreed with it or not. They did rule that the SI did not satisfy the legislation.

The obvious retort to being served a summary of rights at the hearing would be to write a cheque for the costs you deem reasonable and ask the Judge to award you costs and transfer the case to the LVT.

[andydd]

Reverse premium enfranchisement? Is that where the freeholder pays the lessees to take it off his hands? I like the sound of that.

Me too.. I am surprised he is so keen to hang onto it, the ground rent is £30 (after charging me £75 for years), I havn't paid (legitimately) any service charges for 5 years, he has refunded me approx £2500 and spent £5k-£10k in legal costs.

I also doubt whether he has got much money from the other LH.

I agree it is a bit of a stand off but things have improved slowly over tye years, all thats left to resolve in high insurance and driveway maintanence.

Recent comments by the Judge and a new solicitor have been welcomed though, although mediation was painful..mainly becuse he appeared to have nho clue as to what was going on.

Andy

[leaseholdanswers]

Reverse premium enfranchisement? Is that where the freeholder pays the lessees to take it off his hands? I like the sound of that.

It is and I have done it more than once but I am afraid it's not one I am going to give away for free, sorry

[leaseholdanswers]

I have often wondered about this. I guess it depends on where the Judge sits on these formalities. In the CC case I was involved in the Judge was very strict on failure by the LL under s47 LTA 1987.

Its not so much formalities but that the respondent should have mentioned it in their defence. Failing to do so is itself an abuse of process, technically, but also it is disingenuous to retrospectively assert that you withheld something on a right that you were then unaware of.

Moreover it depends what the claim stated was.Some items could still be heard.

If a summary is proffered then either side should ask for adjournment and leave to amend the proceedings, it need only be for a few minutes to agree to go to the LVT, while another case is being heard- judges like parties who sort it out and costs are less heinous. They can also say that I am still withholding it. its a big card to obtain and force the LL to discuss.


I am more interested in the case of Tesco vs LHA. An item ordered today was substituted, without saying so, with an item which they refuse to believe was sent to me as its not on their website..... which is rather like saying I insist the case be heard even though the law says I cant because I didn't serve the summary.

[siva]

Its not so much formalities but that the respondent should have mentioned it in their defence. Failing to do so is itself an abuse of process, technically, but also it is disingenuous to retrospectively assert that you withheld something on a right that you were then unaware of.

Yes, it should be mentioned in the defence or in the application for a summary judgement (if that's how they work. I've not looked into them). That is of course if you knew about it at that time.

I believe that you are entitled to withhold, that's obviously the intention of the legislation. In fact I think the freeholder should be penalised in some way for not providing them (other than loss of interest). There is time sensitive information (s21 LTA 1987) in there. An unscrupulous LL could withold them to deprive the tenant of the chance to demand a summary of service charges for the last accounting period.

I am more interested in the case of Tesco vs LHA. An item ordered today was substituted, without saying so, with an item which they refuse to believe was sent to me as its not on their website

Good luck with that one!