Om Property Management Limited v Tom Burr

Decision date: 26 January 2012

Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 2 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal concerned when "costs... incurred" for section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 are treated as incurred, in a dispute over a retrospective communal gas bill. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT erred in treating costs as incurred when the gas was supplied; instead a cost becomes concrete on presentation of an invoice or on payment, and which applies is a question of fact. Because Total presented an invoice in November 2007, the management company's claim fell within the 18‑month limit and was recoverable.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

For the purposes of s.20B LTA 1985, a distinction exists between a mere liability and a "cost"; a cost is ordinarily treated as incurred when it is made concrete by presentation of an invoice or by payment, and whether it is incurred on invoicing or on payment depends on the factual context, including reasons for any delay.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The judgment contained non‑binding observations that different considerations may arise between invoices and certificates and that Etherton J's policy remarks in Gilje about tenant protection do not require treating the 18‑month limit as an absolute cut‑off regardless of landlord knowledge or fault.