Cases - 38/41 CHG Residents Co Limited v Ms Iris Hyslop
Record details
- Name
- 38/41 CHG Residents Co Limited v Ms Iris Hyslop
- Date
- [2020]
- Citation
- UKUT 21 (LC)
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Service charges – service of demands
- Summary
-
Clause 6(4) of the tenant’s lease incorporated section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (‘the 1925 Act’). Consequently, any service charge demand would be deemed ‘sufficiently served’ if it was sent to the tenant by post in a registered letter, left at her last known place of abode in the United Kingdom or affixed or left on the land or any house or building comprised in her lease.
A dispute arose between the appellant landlord and the tenant as to whether service charges for 2 periods were payable. The tenant contended that she was not liable to pay the relevant demands because she had not received them.
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the demands had not been properly served on the tenant because the freeholder could not be certain that they had been received although they were delivered in accordance with clause 6(4).
The freeholder appealed. It argued that that the FTT had misconstrued the test for service in light of clause 6(4) of the lease. The proper test was whether the demands had been delivered rather than received. Secondly, the FTT had applied the wrong standard of proof. It should have asked whether on the balance of probabilities the service charge demands had been delivered on the dates in question rather than requiring certainty of receipt.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) allowed the freeholder’s appeal. The FTT should have asked whether the demands had been delivered in accordance with clause 6(4) of the lease. On the facts of this case it had been.
The FTT had reached an irrational conclusion based on the evidence and the tenant was liable to pay the service charges for the relevant period.