Aviva Investors Ground Rent GP Ltd and another v Williams and others
[2023] UKSC 6
Dr Lellis Francis Braganza v The Riverside Group Limited
2 October 2023
[2023] UKUT 243 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone argued about service charges on their flat. The judge said the landlord's method of splitting the costs was fair, even though the judge's reasoning was a bit mixed up. The final decision was the charges were correct.
Key Facts
- •Dr Braganza appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision upholding service charges levied by The Riverside Group Ltd.
- •The dispute centered on the role of Riverside's surveyor in apportioning service charges between flats and houses in a development.
- •The lease provided for a monthly service charge, with the surveyor empowered to adjust it annually.
- •Dr Braganza argued that Section 27A(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 rendered the surveyor's apportionment void.
- •Riverside contended that the surveyor's role was valid, subject to a rationality review by the FTT.
Legal Principles
Section 27A(6), Landlord and Tenant Act 1985: An agreement attempting to determine service charge disputes in a particular manner is void.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 27A(6)
Aviva Ground Rent Investors GP Ltd v Williams [2023] UKSC 6 clarified the scope of Section 27A(6), limiting it to questions of contractual entitlement and statutory regulation.
Aviva Ground Rent Investors GP Ltd v Williams [2023] UKSC 6
Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17 established the standard for reviewing discretionary decisions, focusing on rationality rather than reasonableness.
Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17
The FTT's jurisdiction under Section 27A is limited to reviewing the rationality of discretionary management decisions made by the landlord, not making those decisions itself.
Aviva Ground Rent Investors GP Ltd v Williams [2023] UKSC 6
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The FTT's original decision, upholding the service charges, was correct even though its reasoning was flawed. The Supreme Court's decision in Aviva clarified that the FTT only reviews the rationality of the landlord's discretionary decisions, not making them anew. The surveyor's apportionment was found to be rational.
Dr Braganza's request for reimbursement of tribunal fees refused.
Appeal was dismissed.
Similar Cases
Michael Connell & Anor v Beal Developments Limited & Ors
[2024] UKUT 54 (LC)
Hawk Investments Properties Limited v Diana and Christopher Eames & Ors
[2023] UKUT 168 (LC)
Fitzroy Place Residential Limited & Ors v Angus Lovitt & Ors
[2024] UKUT 63 (LC)
Assethold Limited v Nelio Patricio Teixeira Franco
[2022] UKUT 285 (LC)