GGrr..S47 of LTA 1987

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

    GGrr..S47 of LTA 1987

    Here's an annoying LVT decision.

    http://www.lease-advice.org/decision...10000/9532.pdf

    The Tribunal conclude that all the service charges are payable and that the LH's must refund the FH his fees.

    But they also go onto to mention that none of the demands comply with S47, meaning that nothing is actually due, but they ignore this, mainly due to the fact that the LH didnt raise this as a defence.

    So there are some leasons here:-

    Seek advice before going to an FTT/LVT (The LHs here appear unrepresented).

    If you believe that there is any possible reason why you havbe the right to withold service charges, make sure its in your defence and I'd recommend getting in early with a Strike Out/Summary Judgement application* if at County Court or using the new FTT rule P9 to strike out the opposing sides case.

    * I had success with this, my FH agreed to withdraw his case and pay my costs, as a consequence it didnt go anywhere near the FTT (much to my relief).
    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.

    #2
    That would be overturned on appeal. S 47 is clear in that it is not a matter of entering it in a claim or defence but that until the information is furnished the amounts are as the Act says not due. This precludes the charges from being due and is not like the summary of rights, a rights to be asserted.


    shall be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before that information is furnished by the landlord by notice given to the tenant.
    Worrying where a judge makes that determination.....


    Assuming that the other matters were raised and could be considered, the determination should be that the amounts determined that were not subject to such notice are not due until they do provide that info.


    All the LL need do is adjust the amounts and re demand accordingly.
    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


      #3
      I have read the case in depth and see nothing wrong with the result.
      ( But agree that the correct proceedures for demanding the service charges may not have been in order )

      The work wanted to be done, needs to be done, the council are near to sueing the freeholder for not haveing the funds to complete the works because the leaseholders refused to forward their service charges.

      This is typical of leaseholders that they think that by forming an RTM company, all the service charges will magically disappear.

      The leaseholders made the council write to the freeholder, because the freeholder had no money to carry out repairs.

      Typical of leaseholders trying to get away from their obligations of repairing a listed building by saying ( some ) "Ah, the prescribed information was not sent, or the font was size 9 and not size 10, we don't have to pay".

      And this is what happens, time and money is wasted in court rooms, and the leaseholders still have to pay, and because they tried to not pay, they now have to pay the freeholders costs, and rightly so.

      R.a.M.

      Comment


        #4
        Ram, I disagree with you here.

        The law is the law..S47 is clear in black and white. It cant just be ignored when an LVT feels like it, I'd agree with LHA that an appeal would have a very large prospect of success, this would appear to be the very definition that the LVT has erred on a point of law.

        I am one of the people you refer to as a 'typical leaseholderr' who has 'got away' with witholding service charges due to minor errors, BUT the laws have been made and they should be complied with, we would be in a right mess if Judges/Tribunal panels took it upon themselves to ignore legsilation when it suits, in this case S47 has been around for 28 years and many LVT's and Courts have concluded that amounts are not apayble until it is complied with, why not in this case ?

        You say that time and money has been wasted in courts and leaserholders still have to pay, again, I disgaree with this assumption, in my own case, I forced an early end to proceedings by appying for summary judgement, (this solely exists to bring an end to hopeless proceedings and thus save time & costs for all parties involved including the courts), as a result my FH's case was struck out for the minor technicalities you mention.

        Don't you think it is somewhat worrying that in this case the FH was sending invalid demands to leaseholders, you could assume that perhaps every service charge they sent was in fact invalid and they ran a very real risk of being unable to recover any service charges at all, again, in my scenario, my FH has clearly been sending invalid service charge to EVERY leaseholder, and he only corrected them when presented with the evidence as to why they are invalid by me, I could argue I have been doing him a service by informing him, unfortnately for him, it has cost him money by pursuiong me an ohers through legal action before checking his demands are actually correct.

        Finally the main reason I posted this thread as it shows yet another worrying inconsistancy by the FTT/LVT. What they should of done as LHA has mentioned is to continue to carry ou and determine the 'reasonableness' of the chanrges (I have no disagreement with this) BUT point out that nothing is payable UNTILL S47 is complied with, one would assume that this would easily be recitified *

        * I am in two minds as to whether this is the correct route, hence why in my similar case I made efforts to have the FH's case struck out early in the proceedings.
        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


          #5
          Aah but as I have explained before if the application to the FTT is worded to allow them to determine service charges there are often two aspects.

          1 fairness and reasonableness

          2 payability - horrid word but it is in common useage.

          So a suitably worded application can determine 1 but under 2 that they are not due. All the LL need then do is adjust the amounts and re demand accordingly.

          Where you suggest
          hence why in my similar case I made efforts to have the FH's case struck out early in the proceedings.
          Some proceedings might be struck out at application stage if they have not asked that the Sc be determined ( ie the "have or will be demanded" application)
          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


            #6
            You maybe right, maybe my FH's solicitor could of argued at the summary judgement hearing that the case should not be dismissed summarily and should go forward to a full hearing and maybe transfer to the FTT to discuss the reasonableness of future charges ? (i.e charges that maybe due should they be due should they be re-demanded with the correct paperwork).

            But I doubt he is knowledgable enough in Landlord & Tenant law and they simply decided to withdraw the case. (Well use a P36 offer).

            Cases like the one above do make me feel I took the correct course of action, (i.e get it struck out at the earliest possible stage and avoid the vageries of an FTT determination.)
            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


              #7
              Well no this was an FTT application not a court one. What I am saying is that the application can determine many things, not solely payability. if that was the sole basis then the OP would have one.
              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

              Latest Activity

              Collapse

              • Reply to Changing Lease Clause to Permit Letting
                by ram
                [/FONT][/SIZE]
                • 1) Your possition - and mine, is NOT permitting letting will enhance the properties.
                • 2) Bad tenants DO adversely affect property values - normally.
                • 3) Your lease is not defective, so no need to change. And Judges HAVE gone along with the freeholder keeping the "no letting"
                ...
                24-07-2021, 23:42 PM
              • Changing Lease Clause to Permit Letting
                by witsend55
                Not sure if this is the best section to post in, so please move if it is considered best place elsewhere.

                I have had ownership of a flat, one of just four in a converted house, for many years. There is a simple flat management structure; the four owners are directors and have one share...
                24-07-2021, 11:53 AM
              • Reply to Advice on flat sale
                by Ionela Preda
                The free holder only asked me to pass the info about the new buyer, so they know at the end.
                and of course, to add him into the RTM, too.,...
                24-07-2021, 21:41 PM
              • Advice on flat sale
                by Ionela Preda
                Guys, hi!

                I represent a RTM Company, I am the Director of it, 11 flats in our block.
                He have some people willing to sell their flat, and I am really “flat” on the legal aspect;

                I need to give them: the Deed of Covenant, the Assignment Pack, I need to lift and re-apply...
                24-07-2021, 15:54 PM
              • Reply to Advice on flat sale
                by Ionela Preda
                thank you! I read the post and I can’t wait to be Monday, so I can ring them…...
                24-07-2021, 21:37 PM
              • Reply to Advice on flat sale
                by Ionela Preda
                Yes, Homeground is now representing the Free Holder and gave me the authorisation to carry this.
                they normally do all these themselves, but only for a Management Company, not for our RTM one…

                They declined any help, even paid one.

                the LPE 1 form, we have it from the...
                24-07-2021, 21:36 PM
              • Reply to Advice on flat sale
                by Ionela Preda
                Guys, I can’t believe that you take your time to help! Nice people still exist!
                24-07-2021, 21:29 PM
              • Reply to Changing Lease Clause to Permit Letting
                by MdeB
                Earlier posters have covered everything I wanted to write.

                Owner occupiers generally treat a property better than tenants (I have been both and it applied to me too).
                24-07-2021, 21:18 PM
              • Leaseholder placing table and chairs on freehold land
                by Joubert
                I am a director of a freehold company which comprises six leasehold flats in a converted building.

                The leaseholder of the lower ground flat has taken to placing a small table and two chairs outside her front door for use when the weather is good. They items are not causing any obstruction....
                24-07-2021, 17:06 PM
              • Reply to Leaseholder placing table and chairs on freehold land
                by AndrewDod
                Not adverse possession I don't think. Even if the chairs remained there fenced off for a decade, I don't think you can claim AP relating to land you have the right to access anyway.

                I can't see a problem with them sitting there if the lease allows, but should not be leaving the stuff there...
                24-07-2021, 19:43 PM
              Working...
              X