Cases - Ashleigh Court Right To Manage Company Ltd v De-Nuccio & Ors

Record details

Name

Ashleigh Court Right To Manage Company Ltd v De-Nuccio & Ors

Date

[2015]

Citation

UKUT 258 (LC)

Legislation

• Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Keywords

Service charges – Consultation – landlord’s notice – address for inspection – schedule 4 Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 – section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Summary

The appellant landlord appealed against the decision of the LVT in which it held that the appellant had failed to comply with the statutory consultation requirements in respect of building works to the roof of the respondents’ block of flats. The appellant was accordingly limited to recovering a maximum contribution of £250 from each lessee.

The consultation notice sent by the appellant to the respondents specified that in the first instance its managing agents were to be contacted in respect of inspection of the tenders received. No contact details were given for the managing agents and the time given for inspection was between 9:00 to 12:00 on weekdays.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the place and time provided for inspection were not 'sufficiently convenient'. The address provided for inspection was confusing and difficult to find and further, no address the managing agents was specified.

It was held that the FTT was wrong to pose the question of whether the place and times provided for inspection were 'sufficiently convenient'. The question which should have been asked pursuant to the regulations was whether the time and place specified for inspection were 'reasonable'. In determining the answer to that question regard should have been had to the resources of both the landlord and the tenant.

In all of the circumstances, the approach articulated by the FTT was broadly correct. The notice should have specified a location which the leaseholders could, within the period specified, visit in order to inspect the estimates. The location had to be relatively convenient to the leaseholders, otherwise the inspection would be frustrated. The leaseholders in turn also had to be reasonably accommodating.

The difficulty with the appellant’s notice was that its arrangements for inspection had not been communicated to its own managing agents. The agents had not been given the requisite authority and believed the consultation process was being wholly managed by the appellant. Further, the address provided for inspection was confusing and difficult to find. Accordingly, there had been 2 breaches of the consultation requirements; namely, ‘the place and hours’ specified in the stage 2 notice for inspection of the estimates were not reasonable. Secondly, those estimates were not in fact ‘available for inspection, free of charge, at the place and during those hours'.

Although the appellant had claimed to have substantially complied with the requirements this was insufficient. Full compliance was required. Further, it was not open for the FTT to consider if any serious prejudice had been suffered by the appellant’s failure to comply as no application had been made for dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.