The use of large up-front fees and disproportionate deposits has already resulted in significant cost consequences for one care provider.
The case was Various Occupational Leaseholders of Foundling Court and O’Donnell Court, Brunswick Centre, London v (1) London Borough of Camden (2) Allied London (Brunswick) Limited  UKUT 366 (LC) and others.
If you are an intermediate leaseholder, the responsibility for consulting your own leaseholders lies with the freeholder. In cases where there is an intermediate lease between the freeholder and the occupational leaseholder, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that the consultation requirements in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the “Act”) requires the freeholder to consult the intermediate leaseholder and the occupational leaseholder before carrying out “qualifying works” or entering into a “qualifying long-term agreement”.
Section 20 of the Act limits the service charges payable by a leaseholder in respect of “qualifying works” to £250 and for entering into a “qualifying long-term agreement”, to £100, unless the landlord has consulted the leaseholder in the prescribed manner or obtained dispensation from some or all of the consultation requirements from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (the “FTT”).
Allied London (Brunswick) Ltd (the “Freeholder”) sought to carry out “qualifying works” which required consultation under section 20 of the Act. Consequently, the Freeholder consulted London Borough of Camden (the “Intermediate Leaseholder”) in accordance with the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Act. The Freeholder did not directly consult the occupational leaseholders, instead, the intermediate leaseholder sought to consult with the occupational leaseholders but not in the prescribed manner required by Act.
The Intermediate Leaseholder paid the service charges demanded by the Freeholder and in turn sought to recover the sums from the occupational leaseholders. Consequently, the occupational leaseholders issued proceedings in the FTT under section 27A of the Act, on the basis that they had not been consulted by the Freeholder or intermediate leaseholder in the prescribed manner required by section 20 of the Act and therefore their liability should be capped to £250.
In response, the Freeholder argued that it was only required to consult the Intermediate Leaseholder under section 20 of the Act. The Intermediate Leaseholder argued that there was no requirement for either the Freeholder or itself to consult the occupational leaseholders or in the alternative it was the Freeholder’s responsibility to consult the leaseholders.
The case was dealt with by the Upper Tribunal, having being transferred by the FTT because the issue was one of general public importance.
The Upper Tribunal held that the Freeholder, as the party carrying out the works, had the responsibility to consult the intermediate leaseholder and the occupational leaseholders (as those who would be ultimately responsible for paying the service charge costs). The intermediate leaseholder was held not to be under an obligation to consult the occupational leaseholders as they would not be responsible for carrying out /placing a contract for the works.
The Upper Tribunal recognised that there may be circumstances where it is impracticable for the Freeholder to be able to consult all of the intermediate leaseholders and the occupational leaseholders, particularly if the freeholder doesn’t know the details of each and every occupational leaseholder. In such a case, the freeholder should seek dispensation from the FTT before proceeding with any “qualifying works” or entering into any “qualifying long-term agreements."
This is an important decision as it places a greater burden on freeholders in such circumstances than previously. Unless dispensation from consultation is sought from the FTT, the freeholder is now required to consult with occupational leaseholders where there is an intermediate leaseholder even though there is no direct contractual relationship between the parties or risk the service charges being capped. Expect the routine use of dispensation in such matters!
For more information
For advice on Section 20 and other housing management matters please contact Penny Bournes.
The government announced on 16 May that it will provide a fund of £400m to cover the costs of removal and replacement of cladding to high rise residential blocks which have failed tests.
Whilst some people are under the impression that preparing a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is simply a case of completing a form and ticking a few boxes, it is about far more than this.
A big fear for some people facing divorce and the inevitable carving up of the matrimonial assets. They seek assurances that such assets will be “ring-fenced” and retained for them.
Thinking about the legal status of being a cohabitant probably isn’t at the top of the ‘to do’ list.
When an individual is thinking about making a gift to another individual, consideration needs to be given to the Potentially Exempt Transfer (PET) trap.
We are now only a few weeks away from the biggest change to data protection laws in over 20 years. Are you compliant?
The tragedy, in this case, is that there were options readily available to the midwives that they could have used. This was not a case of having to go above and beyond.
Arising from the recent Family Division announcement, people who think they are legally divorced may in fact still be married.
The SCCS has issued providers in the scheme a series of updated and new documents in order to assist with their National Minimum Wage review.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.