Author Archives: J

About J

J is a barrister in London. He loves service charges and all things leasehold law related. He also likes fighting rogue landlords and mortgage companies.

Being civil

Posted on by
1

Morshead Mansions has been involved in a quite astonishing amount of litigation. Bailii throws up 13 hits (here), cases in the LVT, Lands Tribunal, High Court and Court of Appeal. It’s really must be the most awful burden on all those involved. And now, there is another case to add to the list, Di Marco v Morshead Mansions Ltd [2013] EWHC 1068 (Ch).

Morshead Mansions Ltd is a lessee-owned company. It holds the freehold of (appropriately enough) Morshead Mansions, a block of 104 or so flats. It has two different ways of raising money. The first (and most common) is via the service charge. It seems that, at … Read the full post

Yet another one…

Posted on by
2

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 gives qualifying long leaseholders of houses the right, inter alia, to acquire the freehold. The definition of “house” is quite technical, but, in essence, it turns on whether it could reasonably be called a house (even if it could reasonably be called something else). There is a quite eye-watering amount of law on this issue, most recently Day v Hosebay Ltd; Howard de Walden v Lexgorge [2012] UKSC 41 (our note here).

In general terms, many of these cases are worth quite a lot of money. Which means that they get appealed (and appealed, and appealed). In Henley and another v Cohen [2013] … Read the full post

Lets try not to break this one – HLPA and the Equality Act 2010

Posted on by
13

This may not be a universally held view, but I think we housing lawyers aren’t really very good at equality law.

We were very late to the party with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the first higher court case wasn’t until 2003, with North Devon Homes v Brazier [2003] EWHC 574 (QB); [2003] HLR 59 and we didn’t get into the Court of Appeal until Manchester CC v Romano [2004] EWCA Civ 834; [2004] HLR 47). Then, of course, we broke the Act with Malcolm v Lewisham LBC [2008] UKHL 43; [2008] HLR 41). And, at least as far as I’m aware, there isn’t anything substantive on how the Equality … Read the full post

Non-qualifying successors and counting time

Posted on by
1

Just a short note to alert readers to the case of LB Islington v Doner [2012] EWCA Civ 1745 (casetrack only, as far as I can tell). Since 2007, Doner had moved into a flat owned by LBI. The secure tenant was the former partner of Doner’s grandmother. Doner cared for the secure tenant until his death in November 2008. LBI issued possession proceedings which Doner defended on art.8 grounds.

Both the county court found for LBI. Jackson LJ granted permission to appeal at an oral hearing. The primary issue seems to be the length of occupation. The trial judge seems to have treated it as about 14 months (… Read the full post

Back in time*

Posted on by
Reply

I thought the landlord would lose Daejan v Benson, and, as you all know, the landlord won (see our note here). When NL flagged the next case up to me, I predicted the landlord would lose. And it won. Quite remarkably in my view, but, as is becoming clear, no-one should rely on my view. Least of all me.

In Brickfield Properties Ltd v Botten [2013] UKUT 133 (LC), the Upper Tribunal was grappling with whether or not a variation of a lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 could have retrospective effect. By way of introduction, as you know, the LVT has two primary powers to … Read the full post

Phoenix from the flames

Posted on by
Reply

There was an interesting case-note on Lawtel this week which I suspect most of you saw. The case was LB Enfield v Phoenix and others, High Ct, March 19, 2013, and seemed to concern the circumstances in which a possession claim can properly be issued in the High Court. I have been provided with a note of judgment and so can give you a bit more detail.

Imagine, if you will, that a large number of the good people of North London are, to put it mildly, somewhat dissatisfied with the Tory/Lib Dem cuts to public expenditure (a view, I should add, which is plainly shared by all right-thinking… Read the full post

Would you like ketchup with that hat?

Posted on by
14

Ok. Confession time. For the last year or so, I have been confidently predicting (often vocally and to unsuspecting passers-by) that the landlord would lose its appeal in Daejan Properties Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14. Well, the landlord won.* And so I have a veritable brimful** of hats to consume over the next few weeks.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is the primary statute governing service charges and protections for leaseholders. Sections 20 and 20ZA deal with consultation before certain costs are recoverable. In outline, if a landlord wants to recover more than £250 per leaseholder in respect of works, he needs to consult them in the prescribed … Read the full post