Cases - Triplerose Limited v Ms Bronwen Stride

Record details

Name
Triplerose Limited v Ms Bronwen Stride
Date
[2019]
Citation
UKUT 99 (LC)
Legislation
Keywords
Service charges – variation of lease – sections 35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
Summary

Four flats within a converted Victorian 4-storey house all had different provisions for the payment of service charges. Triplerose was an appellant long lessee. Its lease provided that its only obligation was to contribute to the external painting of the structure of the building. Under the terms of its lease, it was not liable to make any contribution towards the repair or renewal of the main structure of the building or the employment of staff or agents by the lessor for the performance of obligations under the lease.

Triplerose applied for a determination under s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as to whether a service charge was payable for items claimed under the terms of its lease. The lessor, the House of Hector, made a cross-application to vary the terms of Triplerose’s lease under the s.35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).

In accordance with s.35 of the 1987 Act, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) varied Triplerose’s lease compelling Triplerose to contribute one-quarter of the cost of repair and renewal to the main structure of the building and of the cost of any staff or agents employed by the landlord. Triplerose appealed.

Relying on Cleary v Lakeside Development Limited [2011] UKUT 264 (LC) and Shellpoint Trustees v Burnett [2012] UKUT 375 (LC) the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) found that for the purposes of s.35 of the 1987 Act Triplerose’s lease was not unsatisfactory.

The fact that allocation of responsibility for contributions by lessees towards the maintenance of the building was not in a standard form and favoured one lessee over the others was not enough grounds to treat those arrangements as unsatisfactory for the purposes of s.35.

Situations where the lack of inadequate contributions may render a lease unsatisfactory have to be supported by evidence. In this case the evidence suggested that building was in reasonable condition and any shortfall in service charge was being funded by the members of the House of Hector, which the respondent was one.