Cases - Buttermere Court Freehold Ltd v David Goldstrom and Andrew Parissis; Blair Court Freehold Ltd v Andrew Parissis

Record details

Name

Buttermere Court Freehold Ltd v David Goldstrom and Andrew Parissis; Blair Court Freehold Ltd v Andrew Parissis

Date

[2019]

Citation

UKUT 225 (LC)

Keywords

Service charges – obligations for maintenance and repair

Summary

In conjoined appeals, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) was asked to determine the liability of the lessees of the 77 flats at Buttermere Court and the 78 flats at Blair Court to pay a service charge for the repair, maintenance and decoration of meter cupboards. The meter cupboards were outside each flat and next to the internal front door of each. They were not mentioned in the leases, but they were within the red edging on the lease plans. On that basis, the respondents argued that they are within the demise.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that that the meter cupboards were not part of the demise, and they were therefore the landlord’s responsibility.

The FTT found that it was possible that the relevant plans were not accurate. Further, it regarded as problematic the absence of any mention of the meter cupboards in the leases as well as the absence of any specific rights or obligations in relation to them. It noted that some of the wires in the cupboards were shared with other parts of the building and it was the landlord’s responsibility to maintain all wires and cables that were not used solely by individual flats. It therefore made sense that the cupboards were also the landlord’s responsibility. The cupboards were also not intended to be used as a habitable space. Lastly, if the cupboards were part of the demise the landlord may face difficulties in taking enforcement action against a lessee who allowed the meters to fall into disrepair.

The UT noted that the FTT was tasked with construing the leases by reference to what the leases (including their plans) said. Only if the leases were ambiguous was it permissible to refer to other evidence of the intentions of the parties at the time the lease was granted. The UT determined that the approach adopted by the courts in the context of boundary disputes was equally relevant in the present case: Pennock v Hodgson [2010] EWCA Civ 873 at [12], followed. In construing the lease, the court or tribunal had to ask what the purchaser with the plan in their hand, on the day of the grant of the lease, would think they were buying. Phrased in such terms the answer was relatively simple. The lease was not ambiguous. It did not mention the cupboards, but the cupboards are unambiguously within the red edging on the plan.

Further, the absence of specific obligations relating to the cupboards did put ownership in doubt. The landlord’s obligation to repair wires inside the cupboards did not indicate that it must belong to the landlord. Equally, there was no need for the cupboards to comprise ‘habitable space’ and there would be no special difficulty for the landlord in enforcing obligations of the tenant relating to the interior of the cupboards.