London Borough of Southwark v Various leaseholders
Decision date: 19 December 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 438 (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 Southwark Council's Notices of Proposal for five borough‑wide partnering QLTAs complied with Schedule 2 paragraph 4(6)(b) of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (requiring statement of current unit costs/rates) and so whether dispensation from consultation was needed. The UT held the council's served proposal and available detailed schedules of rates/pricing models did supply the required current rates for the works covered by the QLTAs, so paragraph 4(6)(b) was satisfied and no dispensation was necessary; the LVT's refusal was criticised in part but 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: high
The ratio is that paragraph 4(6)(b) should be read as requiring disclosure of current unit costs/rates for the works which the proposed QLTA will provide for, not a literal disclosure of every conceivable non‑standard or unforeseen item; where detailed pricing models and extensive schedules of rates covering the works are made available for inspection, the landlord will ordinarily have complied with paragraph 4(6)(b).
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 UT indicated (obiter) that an LVT may properly refuse prospective dispensation if it is reasonable to expect the landlord could postpone giving notice until a later date when compliance would be practicable, and that paragraph 8's duty to give written notice when estimates become available does not itself create a new consultation opportunity or reverse the consequences of a deficient Notice of Proposal.