CASES

CASES
Decisions of Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Cases can be downloaded from:-
The Residential Property Tribunal Service (RPTS) www.rpts.gov.uk
The RPTS runs the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals at 5 locations around the country.
The local RPTS for London is to be found at:-
2nd. floor, 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LR
or
The Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) www.lease-advice.org
LEASE is Government funded to provide support for all clases of residential leasehold.
The local RPTS for London is to be found at:-
31 Worship Street, London EC2A 2DX

Decisions of Lands Tribunal Cases can be downloaded from:-
The Lands Tribunal www.landstribunal.gov.uk
The Lands Tribunal is an independent judicial body set up to settle disputes concerning land. It acts as a court of appeal for cases that have already been to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.
Only cases that have been to the Lands Tribnual will be available on the Lands Tribunal web site
The Lands Tribunal has permanent hearing facilities in London but may sit anywhere in England or Wales. The London address is:-
Lands Tribunal, Procession House, 55 Ludgate Hill, London EC2M 7JW

Judgments from the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Appeal
And from the Administrative Court, selected by the judge concerned, are available for free on the Bailii (British and Irish Legal Information Institute) database. If a High Court judgment is not available on BAILII , contact the court direct for a copy.

House of Lords Judgments can be downloaded from:-
House of Lords www.publications.parliament.uk
only judgements since 14 November 1996 are available

European Court of Justice Judgments can be downloaded from:-
Access to European Law

Particular Cases of note are:-

Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Cases

LVT Cases concerning applications by Landlords for Dispensation not to consult.

LON/00BF/LDC/2006/0078 LAPN v Sutton
LON/00AT/LDC/2006/0081 LAPN v Hounslow
LON/00AW/LDC/2006/0082 LAPN v Kensington & Chelsea
LON/00AS/LDC/2006/0076 LAPN v Hillingdon
LON/00BK/LDC/2006/0075 LAPN v Westminster
LON/00AJ/LDC/2006/0074 LAPN v Ealing
LON/00AE/LDC/2006/0079 LAPN v Brent
LON/00BB/LDC/2006/0077 LAPN v Newham
The LAPN case or PDF
This extraordinary case involved 8 boroughs conspiring together to set up a single framework agreement complete with a strategic alliancing agreement. Leaseholders success in fighting this case possibly amounts to their greatest contribution to the fight against anti-competitive activity in local authority construction projects to date.
The London Area Procurement Network or LAPN subsequently attempted to appeal against the LVT decision but this was rejected. Download here the rejection letter.
LON/00BK/LDC/2006/0001 Various addresses on the Warwick and Brindley Estates v London Borough of Westminster or PDF
The warwick and Brindley Towers were those referred to by Cllr Angela Harvey when trying to justify staggering leaseholder's bills for refurbishment saying "When the six Warwick and Brindley Towers in Westbourne were built in the mid 1960’s, like Georgian terraces 200 years earlier, they were expected to have a 30-year life." If they were designed to have a 30 year life then why were flats in them given 125 year leases?????
LON/00BK/LDC/2006/030 City West Homes v Leaseholders of the City of Westminster Also
Re Dispensation not to consult re long term agreement for the supply of Gas and Electricity. City West Homes granted dispensation.
LON/00AG/LDC/2006/0069 Camden v All right to Buy properties in the London Borough of Camden or PDF
Overturned by Lands Tribunal - see LRX/81/2007 below.
LON/00BG/LDC/2006/0072 LB of Tower Hamlets v Various leaseholders of properties in LB of Tower Hamlets or PDF
For Dispensation for a long term agreement under Section 20ZA
LON/00AP/LDC/2007/0003 and 0004 LB of Haringey v Various Leaseholders of the LB of Haringey or PDF

Other LVT Cases

LON/00BG/LIC/2004.0034 Romilly v Poplar HARCA
concerns how close estimates need to be to actual costs

LON/00AO/LIC/2004/0037 Abdul Kalman v London Borough of Islington
LON/00AG/LDC/2004/0038 Chalcot Estate v London Borough of Camden
LON/00AU/LSC/2005/0200 Tankard v London Borough of Islington
LON/00AU/LSC/2005/0299 Lucy Shehata Andel-Malek v London Borough of Islington
Overturned by Lands Tribunal - see LRX/90/2006 below.

LON/00AW/LSL/2006/038, 130 & 134 Browne & others v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Found in favour of leaseholders and large sections of major works costs deemed as unrecoverable

LON/00BG/LDC/2006/072 London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Various Leaseholders of London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Concerns Estimated Management Charges

LON/00AY/LSC/2006/0165 Belbehri v London Borough of Lambeth
This case related to several categories of works a block on the Ethelred Estate in Lambeth but the importance of it is specifically with regard to the roof works. The existing flat roof was replaced with a 'green roof' that cost more than the equivalent conventional roof. See here.
The leaseholders concerned objected to the additional cost and argued that the additional value that it would give had not been proven. Evidence was given as to the increased performance that the roof would give with regard to thermal performance and life expectancy but this was not accepted by the tribunal as independent and the tribunal found against the landlord. It is now feared that this will frighten off landlords from making these improvements in future.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that it is necessary for Government or some truly independent body to produce data and ready means to project future cost savings for such schemes. The increased U value can fairly easily be converted on paper into financial savings and Derry & Toms is an example of what amounts to a green roof that has so far lasted since the 1930s. The other questions that this case again raises is whether ordinary tenants and leasehold tenants really have different financial interests in the long and short term and why it is that grants seem to be available for ordinary tenants but not leaseholders.

LON/00BK/LSC/2006/0445 City of Westminster v The lessees of Taunton House and Reading House, Hallfield Estate
Leaseholders complained that they did not want television service but LVT found in favour of the Landlord.

LON/00BK/LSC/2007/0086 Fleury & others v City of Westminster
Found in favour of leaseholders and large sections of major works costs deemed as unrecoverable

LON/00AM/LSC/2007/0132 Silver v London Borough of Hackney
This case ins entirely concerned with reasonableness of service charges but ranges across a wide range of these that have been charged over a number of years to a Mrs June Silver who lives near the foot of a tower block in Shoreditch. Mrs Silver had mixed success with her application but the case is particlarly of importance to Hackney leaseholders who it would appear were all overcharged for administration through a period between 1993/4 to 2000/1 and some Ł90+ for advice from the neighbourhoof office staff concerning alterations and the giving of consents that the tribunal thought should only be paid for by those who received it. (if the cost spread across 8,500 leaseholders works out at Ł90 then the charge for the handfull who take advantage of the service will surely bring tears to their eyes). Also much of the case concerned apportionment of the various service charges and illustrates how poorly the clauses concerning this in most leases can serve. Southwark and Enfield are two boroughs which have adopted systems of apportionment that are more sophisticated, perhaps fairer but whether they are inforceable will depend as always on the wording of individual leases. If the leaseholders see these systems as fairer then they may never be tested at the LVT but they may still technically remain unenforceable.

LON/00AU/LSC/2007/0387
Mr. M. Read, Mr. O. Hart, Mr D. Hyams v London Borough of Islington
16-Dec-2007

LON/00AU/LSC/2006/0269
Miss Alison Craighead & 26 other leaseholders v Homes for Islington Ltd & London Borough of Islington
26-Oct-2008
The Spa Green Estate, Rosebery Avenue, Islington

LON/00AU/LSC/2008/01717 London Borough of Islington v Mr D. O. Anike of 269B Hornsey Road N7 6RZ
One of the Issues was that Mr Anika did not think that he should need to pay for a TV aerial that he was not using. Apparently the lease included that the leaseholder should pay towards the upkeep of services, specifically including for a television aerial. The decision included "It is not unheard of for Lessees to contribute towards services for which they get no benefit. There is authority for example the fact that you may have a lift in your block which you do not use as you live on the ground floor does not esclude you from contributing towards same. We find that in this matter there is an obligation on the Council to provide the television aerial and the fact that Mr. Anike chooses not to use it, does not mean that he can avoid contributing towards it. To be frank the costs involved are minimal. For the year 2006/7 for example it was only Ł5.15. Nonetheless it is an expense which Mr Anike must meet.

Lands Tribunal Cases

LRX/51/2005 London Borough of Brent v Mrs Nellie Hamilton Date of decision 2006 october 23
granted under Right to Buy legislation – whether lessee liable for management costs incurred in providing services – held lessee liable. Although no power to charge was actually incorporated in the lease the Tribunal found that was implied.
LRX/90/2006 London Borough of Islington v Lucy Shehata Abdel-Malek
See the report in the Islington Tribune
LRX/81/2007 (1)David Auger (2) Association of Camden Council Leaseholders v London Borough of Camden
LRX 185 2006 London Borough of Camden v The Leaseholders of 37 Flats at 30-40 Grafton Way

County Court Cases

Haringey v Ball

Appeal Court Cases

2002 4 ALL ER 450 Gulliksen v Pembrokeshire County Council

2004 EWCA CIV 55 London Borough of Newham V Khatun, Zeb and Iqbal - Office of Fair Trading

2007 EWCA Civ 1024 Cadogan V Sportelli
Case Nos: C3/2006/2178 & C3/2006/2185 & C3/2006/2187 Decision date 2007 October 25th.
This decision confirms 'reversion', 'discount' or 'deferment rates' at 5% for flats and 4.75% for houses. This is for Central London properties and provides a default rate for outside London that will be varied from only if a case can be made to do so. It is clearly intended by the Tribunal that the ruling should be accepted as a guideline to be followed by valuers and LVTs.
See the Leasehold Advisory Service report on "Sportelli"

European Court of Justice

C-288/07
UK Inland Revenue & Customs v Isle of Wight Council and Others
Definitive ruling on what services local authorities must charge VAT
"It is that undesirable result that the Community legislature sought to avoid by providing, in the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, that the activities specifically listed in Annex D to that directive (telecommunications, the supply of water, gas, electricity and steam, the transport of goods, port and airport services and passenger transport, etc.) are, ‘in any event’, unless they are negligible, to be subject to VAT, even when they are carried on by bodies governed by public law acting as public authorities."

updated 2008 November 21st.