Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Allocation
ASB
Assured Shorthold tenancy
assured-tenancy
Benefits and care
Deposits
Disrepair
Homeless
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Nuisance
Possession
Regulation and planning
right-to-buy
secure-tenancy
Succession
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment
By J
12/02/2014

The Lord Giveth, and the Lord Justice taketh away

Morshead Mansions Ltd v Di Marco [2014] EWCA Civ 96 marks the tragic demise of a clever and useful remedy fashioned by Mann J in the High Court case of the same name (our note here). In brief, ss.21, 22, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 entitle leaseholders to summaries of costs in respect of their service charges and, in turn, to inspect underlying documents (invoices, etc). The 1985 Act makes it a crime to fail to comply with the obligations in ss.21, 22 (subject to a defence of reasonable excuse). In reality, however, private prosecutions almost never happen and very, very few councils will take action (the local housing authority has power to prosecute).

The facts of the case are set out in our previous note, but, suffice to say that Mr Di Marco claimed he had not been given the information required under ss.21, 22 and sought an injunction to compel their production. The county court held that there was no such remedy. Mann J disagreed, holding that there was no reason why the civil law could not come to the aid of the criminal law in this case.

And the Court of Appeal decided that the county court was right. The rights in ss.21, 22 were recent re-enactments of much older provisions. Those older provisions had also been “criminal only” sanctions. It would be odd if Parliament had intended there to be a civil remedy, but failed to legislate to that effect. There were a range of civil remedies which were clearly set out in the 1985 Act (s.21B, summary of rights; right to withhold service charges until complied with), which suggested that, where Parliament wanted to create civil rights, it did so clearly and unambiguously. It was unlikely that a tenant would suffer any relevant harm by not being given the information. In any event, most leases provided for some information to be given to leaseholders, so it was not as if they could never find out what was going on vis a vis the service charges.

 

J is a barrister. He considers housing law to be the single greatest kind of law known to humankind and finds it very odd that so few people share this view.

2 Comments

  1. AM

    But is daft to accept that where a statutory right exists, that there are no effective means to compel an unwilling landlord to comply with that right when exercised, or that you obtain the information by exercising other rights. While most leases may provide some information, that is not extended to inspecting the underlying documents. It was expected that local authorities would enforce that right and in the early days did, and some still do, Westminster for example. These rights are necessary for those stuck with uncooperative landlords and are by this decision, left rather worthless.

    Reply
    • J

      I couldn’t agree more. I find it particularly odd that the CA was comforted by s.21A, LTA 1985 as it hasn’t come into force (in its 2008 Act form or its 2011 Act form) and probably won’t ever come into force now (at least in England).

      Reply

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.