In Attorney General v Singer & Singer, Divisional Court, January 24, 2012 [taken from a lawtel note - not on bailii], the Attorney General sought a civil proceedings order, under s.42, Senior Courts Act 1981, against Mr & Mrs Singer. The effect of such an order is that no civil proceedings or civil applications may be made by the person subject to the order without the leave of the High Court. The High Court may make such an order, on an application by the Attorney General, if satisfied that a person has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious civil proceedings or applications in either the High Court or any inferior court.… Read the full post
Tag Archive for 'LVT'
By s.168, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, a landlord may not serve a notice under s.146, Law of Property Act 1925, or otherwise exercise a right of re-entry (i.e. forfeiture) in respect of a breach of a covenant (other than one to pay rent – which is unaffected by s.146, see s.146(11); or service/administration charges, which are dealt with under s.81, Housing Act 1996), unless the breach has been admitted by the tenant or determined by a court, LVT or arbitral tribunal.
There is a bit of a cottage industry in these applications to the LVT. Landlord says that tenant is in breach by, e.g. having a cat. … Read the full post
The Upper Tribunal is hearing what might turn out to be quite an important s.20, LTA 1985 dispensation case today (LB Southwark v over 13,000 leaseholders in the borough (our note here) and, as ever, we’ll bring it to you as soon as we have news of the result. In the meantime, the UT(LC) has been hard at it with two more cases, starting with LB Newham v Hannan and others [2011] UKUT 406 (LC).
Newham had tried to consult leaseholder in respect of a qualifying long term agreement (see s.20, LTA 1985) under which various works to 71 tower blocks would be carried out. The works were … Read the full post
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) appears to have had a sudden burst of efficiency, churning out judgments at over one a week. It wasn’t that long ago that I can remember one a month being considered an efficient turn over. The reason, it appears, is that more judges have been appointed (hurrah!). So, without further ado, we come first to Church Commissioners v Derdabi [2011] UKUT 380 (LC).
The appellants were the freeholders of a property in London and the respondent was their long leaseholder. In June 2010, the appellants issued proceedings in the county court in respect of unpaid service charges from 2007-2010. The respondent defended the proceedings on … Read the full post
Levitt and Levitt v LB Camden [2011] UKUT 366 (LC)
The Brunswick Centre is a well-known mixed residential and commercial development in London. There are almost 400 flats atop perhaps 30 or so commercial units. The flats are (for the most part) heated by a warm air re-circulation system, whereby the heat/hot water is produced by a central boiler and then pumped round the building. In about 2005, Camden (for it is they) decided that the boiler/pipework was reaching the end of its natural life and that it needed replacement.
The appellant leaseholders purchased their flat in about April 2005. They were not prepared to wait for Camden to do … Read the full post
Garside and another v RFYC Ltd and another [2011] UKUT 367 (LC)
By s.19(1)(a), Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, leaseholders are only liable to pay service charges to the extent that they are reasonably incurred.
The property in question has something of an unfortunate history. Following many years of neglect and poor management, the leaseholders successfully applied to the LVT for the appointment of a manager under Pt. 2, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The manager then issued large service charge demands which caused some disquiet amongst some of the leaseholders and, in turn, the manager applied to the LVT to determine whether the sums contained in the demands were … Read the full post
Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Provident Life and Pensions Ltd [2011] EWHC 2302 (Ch)
This is probably one of the most factually complicated collective enfranchisement cases imaginable. In outline, as you know, qualifying tenants of flats have the right to force their landlord to sell them the freehold of the property containing their flats. They have to appoint a nominee purchaser for this purpose, which, in practice, is usually a company formed by the leaseholders for this purpose. The process involves the leaseholders serving an initial notice, setting out why they say that they are entitled to acquire the freehold. The freeholder then has an option to serve a … Read the full post
Recent Comments