Peverel Property Management Peverel OM Limited v Stephen Hughes (and Others being leaseholders of various flats at Regents Park)
Decision date: 25 July 2012
Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 258 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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's consultation notice about major works properly invited written observations and whether it specified the consultation end date. The Upper Tribunal held that stating a provisional intention to appoint a named contractor and serving an advance demand did not negate an express invitation to make observations, and that wording "35 days from the date of this notice" (with the notice dated) sufficiently specified the end date. The UT allowed the appeal on those two points but left the LVT's other, unappealed findings of non‑compliance intact.
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
A landlord's statement of a present or provisional intention to appoint a particular contractor, even if accompanied by an advance demand based on the lowest estimate, does not automatically invalidate an express written invitation to make observations unless the wording demonstrably stifles consultation; and a notice that makes clear how to calculate the consultation end date (for example, "35 days from the date of this notice" with the notice dated) can satisfy a statutory requirement to specify the date on which the relevant period ends.
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: low
The tribunal indicated that it is permissible and helpful for a landlord to disclose provisional thinking about preferred contractors during consultation so long as it keeps an open mind to observations; and that modestly exceeding a minimum consultation period (35 days here versus 30) does not of itself invalidate the notice.