Adriatic Land 5 Limited v The Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point
[2023] UKUT 271 (LC)
Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited v Leaseholders of Sovereign View
27 July 2023
[2023] UKUT 174 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord needed permission to skip consulting leaseholders about expensive fire safety work. A lower court added conditions, but a higher court said those conditions were unfair because they were based on a separate, unrelated issue (a temporary security measure). The higher court let the landlord skip the consultations.
Key Facts
- •Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision granting a dispensation from section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 consultation requirements.
- •The dispensation concerned fire alarm system installation at Sovereign View, a large residential estate.
- •The FTT imposed conditions: the landlord fund the waking watch and not recover legal costs from service charges.
- •The appellant argued the conditions were inappropriate and imposed due to irrelevant prejudice.
Legal Principles
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlord consultation before qualifying works costing leaseholders over £250.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Section 20ZA of the 1985 Act allows the FTT to dispense with consultation requirements.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
In deciding dispensation applications, the FTT must focus on whether tenants suffered prejudice from the lack of consultation (Daejan Investments Limited v Benson [2013] UKSC 14).
Daejan Investments Limited v Benson [2013] UKSC 14
The FTT can impose conditions on dispensations, but these must be appropriate and address relevant prejudice.
Daejan Investments Limited v Benson [2013] UKSC 14
Leaseholders can challenge the reasonableness of service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
The use of reserve funds to pay for works doesn't affect leaseholders' ability to challenge the reasonableness of costs (Eshraghi and others v 7/9 Avenue Road (London House) Limited [2020] UKUT 208 (LC)).
Eshraghi and others v 7/9 Avenue Road (London House) Limited [2020] UKUT 208 (LC)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the FTT's conditions requiring the landlord to fund the waking watch and preventing recovery of legal costs.
The UT found the conditions were based on irrelevant prejudice – the lack of consultation regarding the waking watch, not the fire alarm system. The UT held that even if the waking watch was unnecessary, this wasn't relevant to the dispensation application.
The UT declined to impose any alternative conditions.
The leaseholders suffered no relevant prejudice from the lack of consultation on the fire alarm, and imposing conditions would be inappropriate in these circumstances.
Similar Cases
Radcliffe Investment Properties Limited v Nigel Keith Meeson & Anor
[2023] UKUT 209 (LC)
RM Residential Limited v Westacre Estates Limited & Anor
[2024] UKUT 56 (LC)
Matthew Blake Jacobs v Chalcot Crescent (Management) Company Limited
[2024] EWHC 259 (Ch)
Park Green Investments Limited v Teignbridge District Council
[2023] UKUT 292 (LC)