Adriatic Land 5 Limited v The Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point
[2023] UKUT 271 (LC)
Markus Lehner v Lant Street Management Company Limited
17 May 2024
[2024] UKUT 135 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A leaseholder didn't have to pay service charges for fire safety work because the demand letter had the wrong landlord's name, and the work itself was considered "cladding remediation", meaning he was protected by a new law.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Markus Lehner appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision ordering him to pay £1,244.85 in service charges for insulation and fire-stopping work at his flat.
- •The work was intended to address fire safety risks identified after the Grenfell Tower fire.
- •The appeal concerned the leaseholder protections under Schedule 8 of the Building Safety Act 2022.
- •The respondent, Lant Street Management Co Ltd (LSMC), was Mr. Lehner's landlord.
- •A landlord's certificate was provided shortly before the appeal hearing, revealing that Damgate Freeholds Limited, a superior landlord, might be responsible for the defects.
Legal Principles
Schedule 8 of the Building Safety Act 2022 protects leaseholders from liability for service charges related to 'relevant defects' under 'qualifying leases'.
Building Safety Act 2022, Schedule 8
Several 'deeming' provisions in the Act create presumptions in favor of leaseholders unless the landlord takes specific actions (e.g., providing certificates).
Building Safety Act 2022, various sections
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 provides full protection if the landlord on February 14, 2022, was responsible for the defect; Regulation 6 of the Leaseholder Protections Regulations creates a deeming provision in relation to this.
Building Safety Act 2022, Schedule 8, paragraph 2; Leaseholder Protections Regulations 2022, Regulation 6
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 provides protection against service charges for 'cladding remediation' for qualifying leaseholders.
Building Safety Act 2022, Schedule 8, paragraph 8
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Section 47: A demand for service charges must include the landlord's name and address; failure to do so renders the charge not due.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Section 47
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The service charge demand was invalid due to failure to correctly identify the landlord under section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Additionally, the work constituted 'cladding remediation', entitling Mr. Lehner to protection under paragraph 8 of Schedule 8.
Similar Cases
Radcliffe Investment Properties Limited v Nigel Keith Meeson & Anor
[2023] UKUT 209 (LC)
Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited v Leaseholders of Sovereign View
[2023] UKUT 174 (LC)
Crisplane Limited v Plymouth Community Homes Limited
[2024] UKUT 15 (LC)
Ambercrown Limited v Alexandra Perrett & Anor
[2024] UKUT 158 (LC)