FREEHOLD MANAGERS (NOMINEES) LTD v MARTINA PIATTI POLO PIATTI
Decision date: 6 November 2012
Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 241 (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 may charge for consenting to a tenant's subletting where the lease is silent about fees. The Upper Tribunal allowed the landlord's appeal, holding that section 19(1)(a) does not preclude recovery of a reasonable sum for legal or other expenses incurred in granting consent and that such a charge can be a variable administration charge under Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act, payable only to the extent it is reasonable. On the facts the Tribunal found a £165 (inclusive of VAT) charge reasonable for the consent sought, and remitted further questions about the specific subletting and any other charges for further submissions.
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: high
Section 19(1)(a) of the Law of Property Act 1925 does not prevent a landlord from requiring payment of a reasonable sum to cover legal or other expenses incurred in granting consent to assign or underlet even where the lease contains no express charging clause; charges demanded in connection with the grant of approvals under a lease fall within Schedule 11(1) as administration charges and, where not specified in the lease, operate as variable administration charges subject to the statutory reasonableness requirement.
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 observed that a tenant's flat refusal to pay any reasonable charge for considering an application may justify withholding consent, and suggested that much lower fees (for example around £35) might be appropriate for routine renewals where consent has previously been obtained, but these observations were fact-dependent and illustrative rather than definitive.