London Borough of Havering v Ms Bee A Smith

Decision date: 21 August 2012

Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 295 (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 whether a landlord was limited to service charge estimates given in a section 125 notice when major works were ultimately carried out partly outside the notice's reference period, and whether estoppel barred recovery above the notice amount. The Upper Tribunal held that section 125/125A does not guarantee works will occur within the reference period and does not itself cap charges for work done outside it, and that "straddling" apportionment is an acceptable apportionment method. However, on the facts the landlord was estopped from recovering more than the section 125 amount (with statutory inflation), so the tenant prevailed on that point and the appeal was dismissed.

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

The binding ratio is that a section 125/125A notice obliges a landlord to state estimated service charges for a reference period but does not, by statutory construction, guarantee the works will be carried out within that period or operate as an absolute cap on charges for works falling outside it; where works span the reference period, apportionment by "straddling" (charging pro rata for the period within the reference period and in full for that outside it) is a permissible method, subject to its reasonable application.

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 tribunal commented (obiter) that the statutory purpose of section 125/125A is to inform a prospective purchaser of likely liability during the reference period and that, separately, a lessor may be required on grounds of fairness to bear loss caused by its own delay in carrying out planned works — points about reasonableness and fairness in applying apportionment rather than statutory limits.