Ambercrown Limited v Alexandra Perrett & Anor
[2024] UKUT 158 (LC)
Crisplane Limited v Plymouth Community Homes Limited
16 January 2024
[2024] UKUT 15 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Two leaseholders didn't have to pay for roof repairs to their flats because their lease agreements didn't say they had to. The judge said the lower court made a mistake by saying they did have to pay. The leaseholders won.
Key Facts
- •Crisplane Limited (appellant) appeals an FTT decision ordering it to pay service charges for roof repairs to two flats (96 and 146 Rothesay Gardens) it leases from Plymouth Community Homes Ltd (respondent).
- •The leases were granted under the right to buy scheme (Housing Act 1985, s.122).
- •The flats are in separate two-storey buildings, each with four flats.
- •Roof repairs were carried out in 2018; the necessity and cost were undisputed.
- •The leases are in substantially the same terms, but the differing locations of the flats (upper and ground floor) affect the application of those terms.
Legal Principles
In right-to-buy leases, the legislative background aids interpretation but isn't determinative.
City of London v Leaseholders of Great Arthur House [2021] EWCA Civ 431
There's no presumption that all landlord repair costs are passed to lessees.
City of London v Leaseholders of Great Arthur House [2021] EWCA Civ 431
Service charge provisions are construed restrictively; only what clearly belongs there is included.
Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36
Parties cannot contract out of statutory implied covenants (Housing Act 1985, Schedule 6, para. 14), but this doesn't rewrite express covenants.
Housing Act 1985, Schedule 6, para. 14
Schedule 6, para 14(2) implies a landlord covenant to repair the structure and exterior of a flat and building.
Housing Act 1985, Schedule 6, para. 14(2)
Schedule 6, para 16A allows parties to agree on tenant contributions towards landlord's implied obligations under para 14(2), subject to reasonableness.
Housing Act 1985, Schedule 6, para 16A
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; FTT decision set aside.
The FTT incorrectly interpreted the leases. The implied landlord covenant to repair (Schedule 6, para 14(2)) didn't automatically create a lessee obligation to contribute through the service charge. The express lease terms, properly interpreted, excluded the lessee's liability for roof repair costs.
No service charge payable by appellant for roof repairs.
For flat No. 96, the lease explicitly included the roof in the lessee's repair obligations, but the landlord's covenant to repair the roof was not found in the lease, thus preventing service charges from being imposed, and for flat No. 146, the lease excluded roof repairs from the lessee's contribution obligation, which was upheld.
Similar Cases
Thirty One Crescent Grove Limited v Sven Atherden
[2024] UKUT 80 (LC)
Firstport Property Services Limited v Various Leaseholders of Switch House
[2023] UKUT 219 (LC)
Kiran Rajaram Patwardhan & Anor v Ivygate Developments Limited
[2022] EWHC 3367 (Ch)
S Franses Limited & Anor v Block 6 Ashley Gardens Roof Gardens Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2880 (Ch)