Zaid Alothman Holdings Ltd & Ors v Better Intelligent Management Ltd & Anor (COSTS – CONDUCT – what amounts to “unreasonable conduct”) (2024) UKUT 253 (LC)
This was the appellant leaseholders’ appeal from an FTT decision refusing them Rule 13 costs on the freeholder/managing agent’s application for determination of breach of lease which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It isn’t so much of interest for the decision itself (though that is interesting) but about what the conduct of the freeholder, the tangle of the law and the messy outcome say about the state of leasehold law in general.
The property at issue was Phoenix Place, Liverpool, two blocks of purpose built student accommodation, made up of 74 self-contained studios with a bedroom, bathroom and kitchenette, and 274 ensuite bedrooms grouped into clusters with shared kitchen and common room facilities. Each of the studios, or ‘clusters’ was sold on long leases to leaseholders in 2018, who then let them out to students via agents. In that, not untypical of these ‘investment property’ developments. The current freeholder took over in 2020.
The background is
In January 2022 the respondents issued interim service charge invoices to all the leaseholders to cover the cost of replacing the windows in Phoenix House, which they claimed was needed as a matter of urgency. The sums demanded ranged from £7,459 to £21,717 depending on the number of windows in the relevant unit. The appellants did not pay those invoices. On 1 June 2022 the respondents served notices on the leaseholders asserting that they were in breach of the covenants in their leases and requiring them to replace the windows in their units within 56 days. On 16 June the respondents wrote to the leaseholders offering to replace their windows as part of a large-scale project, with associated costs savings; they said that the offer could be accepted only if the leaseholder admitted to being in breach of covenant as stated in the letter of 1 June 2022. On 20 June 2022 the respondents served consultation notices under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the replacement of the windows.
In mid-July the first appellant, Zaid Alothman Holdings Limited (leaseholder of 30 units in Phoenix Place) instructed Mishcon de Reya, and in the weeks that followed the rest of the appellants joined in that instruction and entered into a retainer agreement with the firm. On 22 July Mishcon de Reya wrote to the respondents explaining that they were instructed, acknowledging the communications sent by the respondents and asserting that they were acting in breach of the leases, unreasonably and in bad faith. No response was received.
On 28 July 2022 the respondents’ solicitors wrote to the leaseholders asserting that as they had not carried out the work as required within 56 days of 1 June, the respondents were entitled to enter the unit, execute the works and recover the cost as a debt; and furthermore that for the leaseholder to attempt repairs would now be a trespass that could be restrained by injunction.
(…)
Meanwhile on 16 August 2022 the respondents had made two joint applications to the First-tier Tribunal, each against all 348 leaseholders. One was for a determination under section 168 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that the leaseholders were in breach of covenant, because they had failed to repair their windows. The second was for a dispensation from consultation requirements, under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act in respect of the replacement of all the windows, on the basis that it was urgently required to be done during the summer vacation while the students were away. The appellants knew nothing about those two applications until they were served on all the leaseholders on 4 November 2022.
It was these applications that unlay the present proceedings.
The difficulty with the applications was that as per JLK Ltd v Ezekwe (2017) UKUT 277 (LC) ‘cluster rooms’, where there is shared accommodation as well as the student’s let room, could not be considered a ‘dwelling’ for the purposes of section 168(4) which gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to determine a breach of lease. The definition of dwelling is as per section 38 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
“”dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it.”
The FTT had initially raised Ezekwe with the parties. Rather surprisingly, the freeholder responded that they considered both ‘clusters’ and studios were outside the FTT’s jurisdiction and that they could serve section 146 notices without the Tribunal’s determination. This was surprising because a) it was their application for determination, and b) it had not been mentioned in the application. IT was also surprising because the freeholder’s response then went on to say that there was jurisdiction for the studios but not the clusters and invited the FTT to make a determination of breach of lease for the studios.
One group of respondent leaseholders argued that the position was that there was jurisdiction over the studios, but not the clusters, and another group of leaseholders argued no jurisdiction over either, so the matter went on to a full ruling on jurisdiction.
The FTT decided that it had jurisdiction over the studios, but not the clusters. The leaseholders made a application for costs under Rule 13, which was refused. The leaseholders appealed.
The Upper Tribunal decided that the freeholder’s conduct in making the applications and proceeding with them when it knew that the effect of Ezekwe was that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction was unreasonable conduct, in particular by not making it clear that it was aware of Ezekwe and that the cluster units were not dwellings, and without first seeking to agree the jurisdiction point with the leaseholders. “Their behaviour was objectively unreasonable; it failed to meet the standard expected of parties who have taken legal advice.”
Costs for the ‘cluster unit’ leaseholders awarded of £19,327
Comment
The costs award seems reasonable – you don’t go round making Tribunal applications against large numbers of leaseholders when you know/have been advised that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.
But let’s look at the background.
First – though actual lease clauses are not mentioned in the Judgment – it appears that the leases of these ‘investment units’ demised the windows to each unit to the leaseholder. On a development of separate 348 units, intended to be sold off on individual leases, this is completely deranged on any practical view. Apart from the physical impossibility of the leaseholders individually repairing or replacing windows, there is the issue of co-ordinating hundreds of leaseholders.
This may in part be behind the astonishing behaviour of the freeholder. In the course of 7 months, the freeholder/managing agents
i) issued an interim service charge demand to replace windows, for allegedly urgent reason – which clearly relies on the windows being the freeholder’s responsibility
ii) Served notice on the leaseholders of breach of lease for failing to replace the windows and giving them 56 days to do so!
iii) Two weeks later ‘offered’ to do the works for the freeholders, but only if the leaseholder admitted being in breach of lease!
iv) Then threatened to enter the properties and do the works, and that if the leaseholders tried to do the works this would now be a trespass!
v) Applied to the Tribunal for both determination of breach of lease, and for dispensation from section 20 consultation, even though the latter would only be required if the works costs were to be put through the service charge – ie, the applications were directly contradictory.
Now this is just my opinion, based on no inside knowledge whatsoever, but this looks like a freeholder faced with a very difficult position (of its predecessor’s making in the drafting of the leases) and – assuming that the window works were indeed urgent – trying to legally bully and threaten its way through in a way that would be most advantageous for it. But that would only work if the leaseholders didn’t get competent legal representation (which here, they did).
Then we have the Ezekwe position, where the accommodation in which someone lives is not ‘a dwelling’ where it shares other living spaces and facilities with another separately demised unit, for the purposes of section 38 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This may need revisiting.
But there we are, it is amazing how complicated and painful these ‘high return investment unit’ leases can be…
Thanks . Re the Ezekwe position I would suggest it could be argued braodly speaking here that the flat is demised as a dwelling though individual bed/study (ensuite?) rooms could be underlet to unrelated people( as well as say multiple people on a joint tenancy) a common situation with sharer flats where leases allow.
The landlord paints and tenant repairs is still a very common arrangement even in large developments though few more recent developments have timber windows and therefore tenant repair is usually (quite) limited to catches hinges and so on. Wholesale replacement is limited to life cycles of say 30 years if that. That said many windows are capable of removal and reinstatement from the interior. It was/is intended that leaseholders will carry out minor repairs and touch up in between repainting reducing the need for timber work to be infrequent and then extensive as a lifecycle ending. The same point applies as above such windows demised to the lessee are quite capable of being replaced internally and if consent(s) required easily achieved with similar materials massing and minutiae.
I think that it is less a mess of leasehold law but that the correct avenue if followed – disrepair given notice and tenant claiming relief- following a detailed inspection rather than the mess they undertook would have worked. Retained or demised, work has to be done in order for scope and costs to be established and whether subject to consultation or not. In the opposite case where windows are retained they , window to window, may require different repairs and therefore particularly in the social( grr) sector it has let to iniquitous costs for unnecessary replacement under Decent Homes , and elsewhere, where repainting or re coating would suffice rather than the easy rip them out option because and RMC thinks it will improve their homes’ values.
No, there were leases of individual cluster rooms, not the whole cluster. So no lease of a dwelling.
Demising windows to leaseholders is deranged in a large, multi unit development, even more so where, as here, it would now be a higher risk building under the Building Safety Act. The Accountable person will still be accountable for the window works, demised or not. That position remains the case whether it is common or uncommon to do so – it is a recipe for disaster.