Generated case pages

Search by case title, citation, date, short overview, ratio decidendi summary, or obiter dicta summary.

AI Notice: Any short overview 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.

AP Wireless II (UK) Limited v On Tower UK Limited [2026] UKUT 286 (LC) 29 July 2026 This appeal concerned whether Part 5 paragraph 33/34 jurisdiction requires an operator to be actually "exercising" Code rights. The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT's statements that actual exercise must be proved and held that jurisdiction is established objectively if the agreement conferred one or more paragraph 3 rights on an operator for the statutory purposes at the conferral date. Site‑specific factual evidence about exercise of rights is generally not required at the jurisdictional gateway but remains relevant to the Tribunal's discretion under paragraph 34.
91 Outram Road RTM Company Limited v Gary Sharpe [2026] UKUT 279 (LC) 24 July 2026 The Upper Tribunal allowed a re‑hearing by 91 Outram Road RTM Company and set aside parts of the FTT’s 2025 service‑charge determinations for 16 disputed items (2015–2023), finding on the balance of probabilities that many previously disallowed or reduced charges were properly incurred and recoverable, while others remained reduced or excluded (e.g. a licence for alterations, individual plumbing, roof clearance charged to a single flat). The UT directed adjustments to recoverable amounts (including specified reductions) and noted it could not itself compel payment.
Mikael Armstrong & Anor v The President, Fellows and Scholars of The College of The Holy and Undivided Trinity in The University of Oxford of The Foundation of Sir Thomas Pope [2026] UKUT 270 (LC) 23 July 2026 This appeal concerned the Armstrongs' application under s.84 Law of Property Act 1925 to discharge or modify three 1960 restrictive covenants affecting their bungalow "Clearview" in Wroxton: a one-house restriction, a design-control covenant, and a nuisance covenant. The Tribunal modified the one-house restriction to permit a second bungalow (subject to the College’s written approval of detailed plans) but refused to discharge or modify the design-control covenant and refused the application in respect of the nuisance covenant. Directions were given for an agreed draft order and costs; the substantive decision is final except as to costs and any permitted appeal.
Stephen Richard Walsh v Star and Garter Mansions (Management Company) [2026] UKUT 267 (LC) 17 July 2026 This appeal concerned whether a lease clause obliging lessees to pay "the fees of the Lessor's Managing Agents and Solicitors for the collection of the rents of the flats in the Building and for the general management thereof" permitted the freeholder/management company to recover county court litigation costs as a service charge. The First-tier Tribunal held the clause did permit recovery; the Upper Tribunal (Judge Cooke) dismissed the appeal and upheld that conclusion. The tribunal found the clause, read in its natural and contextual meaning, could encompass legal expenses incurred in managing the building, including litigation over service-charge apportionment.
David Miller & Anor v National Grid Electricity Distribution (East Midlands) Plc [2026] UKUT 265 (LC) 16 July 2026 This appeal concerned the proper measure of compensation for a statutory "necessary wayleave" under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989: whether claimants could recover a share of the grantee's avoided costs (a commercial/"ransom" valuation) rather than loss to the owner. The Tribunal rejected the claimants' commercial valuation and held compensation is the diminution in value of the land (agreed £43,800) plus provable disturbance (£5,000 awarded for fencing), totalling £48,800 with statutory interest from 18 July 2024. Other disturbance claims were not awarded for lack of quantification or causal connection.
Carl Edward Williams v Aaron John Thompson-Hall & Ors [2026] UKUT 260 (LC) 15 July 2026 This appeal concerned an application under s.84 LPA 1925 to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting a property used as a house with a small B&B. The Tribunal found the covenants were not obsolete (ground (a)) but that they no longer secured practical benefits of substantial value in relation to the B&B use (ground (aa)), and exercised its discretion to modify (not discharge) the covenants to allow limited administrative/self-employed work and no more than two letting bedrooms, awarding £10,000 compensation.
The Willows General Management Ltd v Janet Hawkins [2026] UKUT 263 (LC) 13 July 2026 This appeal concerned whether The Willows General Management Ltd was the "owner" under s.5 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 when serving pitch‑fee review notices on two sites with complex title arrangements. The First-tier Tribunal was held to have correctly found the 2022/2023 notices at Beechfield Park invalid for lack of owner status, and at 14 The Willows the 2023 notice invalid but the 2024 notice valid because the pitch lease had been assigned before the 2024 notice; the 2024 increase to £257.90 from 1 Nov 2024 stands.
Better Intelligent Management Ltd v Phoenix Place Block A RTM Company Ltd & Anor [2026] UKUT 257 (LC) 8 July 2026 This appeal concerned whether “First Claim Notices” served by two RTM companies were valid when their model articles mistakenly described the premises as both blocks rather than the single block claimed. The tribunal held those first notices were not claim notices and had no legal effect; the companies amended their articles, served second notices, and the FTT (and UT on appeal) held the second notices effective and the RTM companies entitled to acquire the right to manage. The UT also rejected an estoppel defence and confirmed the FTT had jurisdiction to decide the effect of the earlier defective notices.
On Tower UK Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited [2026] UKUT 245 (LC) 7 July 2026 This appeal concerned whether a 2016 agreement granting passive mast rights at the Vulcan Arms was a "Code agreement" under the 2003 Electronic Communications Code given that Ofcom's 2005 direction referenced provision of an "electronic communications network". The Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's ultimate conclusion that the 2016 agreement was not a Code agreement, holding that under the 2003 Code an "electronic communications network" requires a transmission system (and apparatus used with it) and does not cover mere unconnected passive mast sites, and that the 2005 direction did not authorise Code rights for passive WIP infrastructure. The appeal succeeded on certain procedural/temporal grounds but failed on the core construction point, leaving the Vulcan Arms agreement non-statutory and not renewable under Part 5.
Sanderstead Removals Limited v Andrew Mouland (Valuation Officer) [2026] UKUT 247 (LC) 6 July 2026 This appeal challenged a VTE decision on the 2017 rating assessment for a former-quarry warehouse and office complex near Godstone, focusing on whether end-of-scheme allowances should reduce the agreed tone of £55/m2 for the hereditament’s specific disadvantages (fragmentation/layout, sloping topography, restricted access and security). The tribunal found the agreed tone did not already reflect all material disadvantages, allowed additional end allowances (composite adjustments including 7.5% for layout, 2.5% topography, 2.5% access and 5% security alongside agreed heating/insulation and floor-level adjustments), and determined a rateable value of £149,500 (revising the assessment down from £174,000). Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law is available in the usual way.
Notting Hill Home Ownership Limited v N Samoail, R Issa & Ors [2026] UKUT 235 (LC) 30 June 2026 This appeal concerned whether shared‑ownership sub‑leases for flats in Block V1 could be construed or varied so the landlord (NHHO) could pass on service charges it paid under its headlease calculated across an eight‑block Development. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT, finding no clear and obvious drafting mistake in the definition of "Estate", that many contested charges were not payable because they did not relate to the Building or benefit the sub‑lessees, and that the statutory variation gateway was not satisfied. NHHO's appeals were dismissed, with one discrete management‑fee issue remitted to the FTT.
Bay Farm Power Ltd v Bob Prescott (Valuation Officer) [2026] UKUT 238 (LC) 29 June 2026 This appeal concerns the method for determining the hypothetical tenant’s share of the divisible balance when valuing two anaerobic digestion plants under the statutory receipts-and-expenditure hypothesis; the Tribunal accepted the receipts-and-expenditure basis and the parties’ agreed divisible-balance inputs but held that the choice of method for allocating the tenant’s share is a factual valuation judgment rather than a fixed legal rule. The Memoranda of Agreement recorded agreed inputs but did not bind the Tribunal to a particular method (for example a 45/55 capital split). The Tribunal therefore proceeded to decide the tenant’s share on the evidence in each appeal.
Mare Street Ltd v Theowal Limited [2026] UKUT 244 (LC) 29 June 2026 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was entitled to strike out Mare Street Ltd’s service‑charge application for lack of jurisdiction after concluding (mistakenly) that no dwellings existed. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT made an error of law by failing to treat the claimant’s pleaded facts as true for the jurisdictional strike‑out test and remitted the matter to the FTT to determine jurisdiction and, if necessary, the substantive service‑charge issues. The parties were invited to agree matters or seek directions from the FTT.
Fah Hor Chong v Eleonora Angela Severgnini & Ors [2026] UKUT 239 (LC) 26 June 2026 This appeal concerns rent repayment orders made against a landlord for an unlicensed HMO and whether the First-tier Tribunal's redetermination was unjust because it failed to consider documents the landlord emailed to the FTT on 16 May 2024, mistakenly believing they had only been sent to the Upper Tribunal. The FTT rejected the landlord's "reasonable excuse" defence and applied mitigation for steps taken toward licensing, reducing the order to 35% of rents (£8,318.76). Permission to appeal was granted and the Upper Tribunal reviewed the limited procedural and legal issues rather than rehearing all factual findings.
Peter Downey v HMRC [2026] UKUT 228 (LC) 26 June 2026 This appeal concerned the market value of a leasehold maisonette at 47 Boscombe Road as at 20 April 2016. The Tribunal held that the VOA expert’s floor‑area (£/sq m) approach overstated value because the subject was an outlier in size and in very poor condition, and allowed the appeal, reducing the value for tax purposes to £670,000.
Simon Fletcher & Anor v Portsmouth City Council [2026] UKUT 234 (LC) 26 June 2026 This appeal concerns challenges by the Fletchers to standard HMO licence conditions Portsmouth City Council imposed, in particular condition 18 requiring written tenancy terms and production to the council "on demand" (interpreted as seven days). The Upper Tribunal reviewed whether the FTT applied the correct standard of review and whether condition 18 (and its production requirement) was lawful under s.67 and Schedule 4 of the Housing Act 2004. The Tribunal proceeded to consider each ground and indicated it would, if it found error, vary contested conditions itself rather than remit.
Tina-Suzanne Davies (Valuation Officer) v Puffin Produce Ltd & Anor [2026] UKUT 236 (LC) 26 June 2026 This appeal concerned whether large potato cold‑storage warehouses were "occupied together with agricultural land" for the Schedule 5, paragraph 3(a) agricultural buildings exemption. The First‑tier Tribunal for Wales had found the buildings exempt, but the Upper Tribunal allowed the Valuation Officer's appeal and rejected the VTW reasoning, while accepting Puffin's factual account of its business model. The UT held the occupation test, not the use test, was decisive and that the VTW's earlier approach was untenable in light of later authority.
WKD Trained Dogs Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2026] UKUT 207 (LC) 26 June 2026 WKD Trained Dogs Ltd claimed compensation after Brookhouse Farm vested in the Secretary of State for HS2 on 13 January 2023, disputing the quantification of "shadow losses" for 1 April 2019–13 January 2023 and the extinguishment value of the business. The Tribunal accepted the business was adversely affected from April 2019 and that uncertainty and management distraction contributed to deterioration, narrowed expert figures for shadow losses and maintainable EBITDA, and identified the valuation date as 13 January 2023, but left key quantifications (final shadow-loss amounts, EBITDA, multiple and any director-remuneration adjustment) to be finally determined.
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v VR Investments Limited [2026] UKUT 237 (LC) 25 June 2026 This appeal concerns a challenge by Walsall MBC to the First-tier Tribunal's quashing of a 6 June 2024 improvement notice alleging a category 1 damp and mould hazard at Flat 5, 39 Lysways Street. The FTT found the Council's likelihood figure was unreasonably high and that, on the materials, the hazard would at most have scored as category 2 on the date of service, so it quashed the notice; the Upper Tribunal was not persuaded the FTT impermissibly relied on post‑service events. The Upper Tribunal recorded the appeal as dismissed.
Pia Spragg v Malcolm Thompson Pearson [2026] UKUT 231 (LC) 22 June 2026 This appeal concerned an application to set aside a post‑settlement TP1 transfer said to go beyond the terms of a prior Tomlin order. The FTT struck out the application as improperly going behind the Tomlin order and because a co‑transferor was not a party; the Upper Tribunal found those conclusions were erroneous and set aside the strike‑out. The UT held the TP1 contained broader covenants and a restriction not found in the Tomlin schedule and that the FTT should not have assumed the transfer simply mirrored the Tomlin terms.
Guillaume Marc-Alex Guinard v Klimas Jurevicius & Anor [2026] UKUT 226 (LC) 18 June 2026 This appeal concerns whether landlords who managed an unlicensed house in multiple occupation (HMO) had a "reasonable excuse" for not obtaining a licence. The First-tier Tribunal found a prima facie offence but accepted the respondents' evidence that they were reluctant landlords who had been manipulated by the tenant and had taken steps to seek the tenant's departure, and therefore had a reasonable excuse; the FTT said it would have awarded only £1 had it had to assess quantum. The FTT's decision was affirmed on the grounds advanced.
Quadron Investments Limited v Patrick Philpotts & Anor [2026] UKUT 229 (LC) 18 June 2026 Quadron appealed the FTT's finding that three ad hoc service charge demands were not payable by leaseholders because they were not made in accordance with clause 4(b) of identical 1991 leases. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the lease's half-yearly instalment mechanism was essential to creating a tenant's liability and that the interim demands, made outside that process and treated as immediately payable, did not give rise to liability. The Tribunal also rejected an implied term permitting ad hoc or interim demands.
Deepesh Kapadia & Ors v The Church Commissioners for England [2026] UKUT 220 (LC) 17 June 2026 This appeal concerned whether an interim service charge estimate under Type 1 leases, required to be "estimated by the Surveyor", was invalid because it was prepared by a managing‑agent employee (Mr Bell) rather than a person holding a surveying title. The Upper Tribunal held that "Surveyor" denotes a person appointed by the Lessors to perform that role and need not be a chartered surveyor; an experienced managing‑agent employee working in a professional surveying environment and with Chartered Surveyor oversight could validly provide the estimate. The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' first ground of appeal and upheld the interim demand.
Carmine Salamone v Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk [2026] UKUT 230 (LC) 15 June 2026 This appeal challenges the First-tier Tribunal's admission of the appellant's 2013 spent convictions when imposing a five‑year banning order following 2024 convictions for breaches of prohibition orders. The central issue was whether the FTT properly admitted the spent convictions under s.7(3) Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (i.e. whether justice could not be done without them); the FTT admitted and relied on the 2013 convictions. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that, if the 2013 convictions were inadmissible, a shorter ban might have been appropriate.
London Borough of Waltham Forest v Great House (Buildings) Limited [2026] UKUT 218 (LC) 12 June 2026 The appeal concerns whether a local authority's notice of intent imposing a financial penalty for an unlicensed HMO was served in time, focusing on how to compute a six‑month statutory period said to "begin with" the day evidence accrued and on the ordinary‑course postal receipt rule. The First-tier Tribunal cancelled the penalty as out of time, but on appeal the UT considered (and followed authority that) a period expressed as "beginning with" a specified day includes that day; one ground of appeal was abandoned and not considered further.
Roger Brookhouse & Anor v The Environment Agency [2026] UKUT 209 (LC) 12 June 2026 This appeal concerns quantum following the Upper Tribunal's 2023 finding that the Environment Agency's 2014 flood‑defence works raised groundwater and damaged the Brookhouses' property; a 2026 hearing determined amounts payable. The main issues were whether compensation should be measured by remediation costs or diminution in value, which groundwater‑lowering remediation scheme is appropriate, and various consequential costs under statute and a Deed. The Tribunal proceeded on its prior liability findings, accepted remediation costs as the primary measure subject to not exceeding the property's unblighted value, and recorded agreed and disputed figures to be quantified (notably large disagreement over groundwater remediation costs).
Adriatic Land 3 Limited v Skyline Central One RTM Company Limited [2026] UKUT 210 (LC) 9 June 2026 This appeal concerned whether Skyline Central One qualified as a "self-contained building" under s.72(1) of the 2002 Act for RTM purposes despite third‑party rights over car park and leisure facilities. The FTT had held the building met the statutory description and that the RTM company was entitled to acquire the right to manage; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld that decision (acquisition effective 1 October 2025). The tribunal rejected the appellant's submission that third‑party use or contributions to maintenance removes premises from the s.72 description.
The appeal of Lucy Formela-Osbourne [2026] UKUT 200 (LC) 29 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether Severn Trent's Stoneleigh Training Academy qualified as an "educational hereditament" under the 1989 Regulations and therefore attracted the lower decapitalisation rate of 2.6% when valued on the contractor's basis. The Upper Tribunal held it did not meet the statutory definition (no evidence it was maintained/assisted by an LEA, a designated further/higher education institution, or provided by a not‑for‑profit body) and substituted the standard 4.4% decapitalisation rate, giving a rateable value of £191,000; the Valuation Officer's appeal succeeded.
Mountview Estates Plc v W8 Property Limited [2026] UKUT 196 (LC) 26 May 2026 This appeal concerned the freehold valuation of Flat 9 at Kensington Court Gardens for lease‑extension purposes, where the lease includes an interior covenant to keep the flat in "good tenantable repair" but the flat was actually uninhabitable. The FTT assumed, for Schedule 13 valuation, that the tenant must be taken to have complied with that covenant and preferred the respondent valuer's larger condition deductions over the appellant's more optimistic assumptions about modernisation and neutral decoration, applying Mr Ryan's figures. Permission to appeal was granted on the discrete question whether the FTT's approach to assumed condition and adjustments to comparables was correct.
Royal Sun and Alliance Insurance Limited v London Borough of Harrow [2026] UKUT 197 (LC) 26 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether the Upper Tribunal had jurisdiction to award costs in a compensation reference under Regulation 24 of the TPO Regulations after a local authority refused consent to fell trees, leading to property damage. The Tribunal held the compensation claim fell within "proceedings for injurious affection of land" under Rule 10(6)(b) and therefore had power to award costs. The compensating authority was ordered to pay the claimant's costs, subject to detailed assessment.
Marigolds Management Limited v Karen Barnes & Ors [2026] UKUT 186 (LC) 11 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether Marigolds Management Limited (MML) was the "owner" able to serve pitch fee review notices under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 when it served notices in September 2023, and related errors in the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT) choice of starting figures for 2024 CPI increases. The Upper Tribunal held the 2023 notices invalid because MML lacked entitlement to possession of the pitches then, upheld the FTT’s refusal to apply a CPI increase to pitch 62 after a reduction in pitch size, and found that the FTT erred in using a 1 November 2023 starting figure for a subset of respondents’ 2024 increases.
Lotus Group Limited v Nicola Johnson (Valuation Officer) [2026] UKUT 185 (LC) 8 May 2026 This appeal concerned the 2017 rateable valuation of a converted warehouse at 37–39 Queen Elizabeth Street and in particular (1) whether the property's functioning raised floor warranted an uplift to the basic rate per sqm and, if so, by how much, and (2) the appropriate basic rate per sqm having regard to competing rental and assessment evidence. On inspection and the evidence the Tribunal found the raised floor merited a 5% uplift and, after weighing rental and list-tone evidence, recorded the appeal allowed with rateable value determined at £435,000.
Martin White v Sarah Brindley [2026] UKUT 184 (LC) 8 May 2026 This appeal concerns whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was entitled to decide, of its own motion, that a tenant was not liable under a lease to pay half the building insurance when that point was not pleaded or pursued. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT acted unfairly in raising and deciding the unpleaded issue, set aside the FTT's decision on insurance, substituted a finding that the tenant must pay the insurance premiums, and ordered the tenant to pay the landlord's full FTT application fee of £114 within 28 days.
Dr Noshaba Khiljee v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] UKUT 171 (LC) 7 May 2026 This appeal concerns whether "rack-rent" in the statutory definition of "person having control" of an HMO must be calculated by reference to the lawful use of the premises (here a single-family dwelling) rather than the unlawful HMO use, and whether aggregate payments from lettable parts can be treated as the premises' rack-rent. The First-tier Tribunal held rack-rent should be assessed by reference to the lawful use and that aggregated payments could represent the rack-rent of the whole, making Dr Khiljee a person having control; her reasonable-excuse defence was not appealed. The Upper Tribunal's determination of that single statutory construction point will decide whether the FTT was correct.
Jason Butler v Flagship Housing Group [2026] UKUT 182 (LC) 7 May 2026 This appeal concerned Mr Butler's s.84 application to discharge or modify restrictive covenants preventing redevelopment of six garages so he could build a single-storey dwelling in accordance with outline planning permission. The Tribunal accepted Flagship's concession that the proposed use was a reasonable user and proceeded to consider the s.84(1) grounds (aa) and (c); expert valuation material in the bundle was treated as effectively abandoned and given little weight. The Tribunal found contemporaneous evidence supported an intention to develop at or shortly after purchase and amended the application to seek modification sufficient to implement the planning permission; no final determination of compensation or final disposal is recorded in the notes.
Mohammed Abid Zaman v Leeds City Council [2026] UKUT 180 (LC) 7 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether a building that meets the converted building test and is an HMO under s.254(4) of the Housing Act 2004 can nonetheless have each flat treated as a "house" for Part 3 selective licensing. The First-tier Tribunal held and the Upper Tribunal accepted that each of the four residential units at 1 Cranbrook Avenue was subject to selective licensing and that separate financial penalties could be imposed for each flat. The Council's imposition of four separate penalties was therefore upheld in principle.
Senada Ziga & Ors v Darren Stuart Yarnold & Ors [2026] UKUT 181 (LC) 7 May 2026 The appeal concerned two FTT costs determinations in which Dr Razoq, a litigant in person and practising locum consultant, sought recovery of his time at his locum rate but was limited to £19/hr for lack of proved financial loss. The Upper Tribunal held the costs judge erred in law by failing to appraise uncontradicted evidence that the hours spent on the litigation prevented remunerative locum work, and set aside the decision on hourly rate for reassessment. The question of applying the CPR r.46.5(2) two‑thirds cap remains for consideration if loss is established.
Hakan Tuyunuklu v Mohammed Akmal [2026] UKUT 174 (LC) 5 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether a tenant could obtain a rent repayment order (RRO) for rent that had been paid, in whole or in part, by Universal Credit and whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) deprived the tenant of a fair hearing by cutting him off and terminating the hearing. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding the FTT did not err in law: rent paid by Universal Credit cannot be recovered by the tenant by way of an RRO (the local housing authority is the proper claimant for that element), and the appellant had failed to communicate that only part of the rent was paid by Universal Credit while his conduct justified termination so he received a fair hearing.
EE Limited & Anor v Clocktower Investments Limited [2026] UKUT 163 (LC) 30 April 2026 This appeal concerned whether rights granted in a lease to install and access telecoms apparatus on a landlord's clocktower amounted to "premises which are occupied by the tenant" for s.23(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The First-tier Tribunal held those rights were incorporeal hereditaments capable of occupation and thus the lease was a protected tenancy under Part II; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld that conclusion, with the result that Part 5 of the Electronic Communications Code was excluded by the transitional provision. The relevant date for the s.23(1) assessment was the lease expiry, 31 May 2022.
Maros Kravec v Salford City Council [2026] UKUT 170 (LC) 30 April 2026 The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision and remitted five civil-penalty appeals brought by Maros Kravec for rehearing by a different FTT panel. The FTT had repeatedly and incorrectly told the appellant that he and his overseas witnesses could not give evidence by video link from the Czech Republic, which led them to provide written evidence only; the UT held that this produced an unfair hearing because the written evidence was given little weight and an adverse inference was drawn. Only that ground was decided; other grounds of appeal were not considered.
Churchill Retirement Living Limited v Hampton Lodge RTM Company Limited [2026] UKUT 164 (LC) 29 April 2026 This appeal concerned whether £1,050 of guest-room licence fees held by the landlord on the RTM acquisition date were "accrued uncommitted service charges" payable to the RTM, and whether the lease required guest-room charges to be credited to the service charge account. The First-tier Tribunal had held the sum was an accrued uncommitted service charge payable to the RTM, but the UT judge concluded the lease wording (para 3, Schedule 2, Part I) contains no obligation on the landlord to credit guest-room charges to the service charge and is not ambiguous. The UT was critical of the FTT’s construction and indicated the lease did not support implying such an obligation.
The appeals of Lucy Dyer (Valuation Officer) & Anor [2026] UKUT 158 (LC) 22 April 2026 This case concerns two unopposed Valuation Officer appeals challenging Valuation Tribunal reductions to rating assessments for office hereditaments fitted out to Category B. The central issue is how to reflect the value of tenant-installed Cat B fit outs where direct Cat B rental evidence is scarce, and whether the statutory percentage in the 1989 Regulations must be applied to convert capital fit-out cost into an annual value. The tribunal preference is to use direct Cat B rental evidence where reliable, and otherwise to allow an uplift to Cat A rents by amortising fit-out cost; application of the 1989 Regulations' percentage is permissive, not mandatory.
Duncan Grossart v Vikki Ames [2026] UKUT 139 (LC) 21 April 2026 This is an s.84 LPA 1925 application by Mr Grossart to discharge a 1996 restrictive covenant limiting Sturt Farm Barn to a single private dwelling, opposed by the covenant beneficiary Mrs Vikki Ames. The Tribunal found that subsequent planning permissions, transfers and the 2021 releases had materially altered the context and practical effect of the restriction, and it impeded reasonable use; the Tribunal discharged the covenant without awarding compensation.
Mohammed Naeem & Anor v Abacona Investments Limited [2026] UKUT 154 (LC) 20 April 2026 This appeal concerned leaseholders challenging £124,759.94 of 2019 service charges for external redecoration at Endwood Court, arguing cheaper access methods (cradles or a scissor lift) could have been used. The FTT found no evidence those methods were safe or lawful in 2019 and held the costs were reasonably incurred; the Upper Tribunal found the appeal bundle contained sufficient material (including a detailed 2019 specification) to show cradles or a scissor lift were likely impracticable and so remittal was unnecessary. The Deputy President had noted tenants need only raise a case and that the landlord may carry the evidential burden to justify more expensive measures.
Nonyelu Chukwudozie Okoye v Leena Zachariah & Anor [2026] UKUT 155 (LC) 20 April 2026 This appeal concerned a rent repayment order against Mr Okoye for letting an unlicensed ground‑floor flat; the First‑tier Tribunal found he was the landlord (having received rent and being named on tenancy paperwork) and rejected his defence that council portal/address registration problems gave him a reasonable excuse. The Upper Tribunal reviewed the FTT's factual findings and, on the material before it, allowed the appeal.
Caffe Concerto Limited v Nicola Johnson [2026] UKUT 148 (LC) 15 April 2026 This is an Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) appeal against a Valuation Tribunal for England decision that dismissed a rating appeal as out of time. The appellant had received the Valuation Officer’s decision by email (not via the VO portal), missed the appeal deadline by 38 days because no automated reminder was triggered, and the VTE refused an extension applying the Denton test. The Upper Tribunal found the VTE’s exercise of discretion was flawed, extended time to 20 August 2025 and reinstated the appeal.
Brickfield Properties Limited v Oakwood Court Blocks 9 & 10 RTM Company Limited [2026] UKUT 133 (LC) 26 March 2026 This appeal concerns whether services to Blocks 9 & 10 at Oakwood Court can be provided independently under s.72(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 so as to allow an RTM acquisition. The First-tier Tribunal found, on the evidence, that gas could be made independent by creating a new connection causing only a short interruption (around 8 hours) and identified practical options to separate cold water supplies; the FTT preferred much of the landlord’s expert evidence but discounted the tenant’s expert for advocacy. The FTT therefore moved towards upholding the RTM claim on the gas point and considered separability of water to be achievable by identified works.
Limehouse East Management Limited v Simon Butler & Ors [2026] UKUT 118 (LC) 17 March 2026 This case concerns Upper Tribunal appeals against a First-tier Tribunal order limiting a leaseholder-owned management company (LEML) to recovering 75% of its costs through the service charge and refusing reimbursement of hearing/application fees under s.20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and para 5A Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT’s 75% reduction and refusal to award fees were within its discretionary range and did not amount to an error of law. The Tribunal also rejected the submission that any percentage reduction must be a mechanical translation of the leaseholders’ degree of success.
Nigel Briant v Hugo Baldacchino & Anor [2026] UKUT 115 (LC) 11 March 2026 This appeal concerns Mr Briant’s third application under s.84 LPA 1925 to modify a 1987 restrictive covenant preventing further building on his former cottage plot (Smugglers Hyde) so as to permit two replacement dwellings (RD1B and ND2) and ancillary outbuildings. The Tribunal excluded a basement-containing option (RD1A) from consideration on construction/impact grounds and confined substantive assessment to RD1B and ND2, weighing comparative size, proximity, visual impact and mitigation (fencing/planting); the application proceeds subject to conditions and possible compensation.
Hannah Chinn & Ors v Marie-Louise Høilund-Carlsen & Anor [2026] UKUT 110 (LC) 10 March 2026 This case concerns a rent repayment order (RRO) after tenants occupied a flat that, by local designation and by having three separate households, required an HMO licence that the landlords did not obtain. The First-tier Tribunal found the landlords had awareness a licence was required, rejected reliance on their letting agent as a reasonable excuse, and awarded 35% of rent (£7,225); the tenants appealed seeking a higher award and the Upper Tribunal found the FTT's reasoning on mitigation unclear and required re‑examination. The appeal was permitted as it was arguable the FTT erred in treating the landlords' non‑professional status as mitigation despite its finding of awareness of the licensing obligation.
Vinod Nair v Adiya Cherukovilakath & Ors [2026] UKUT 111 (LC) 10 March 2026 The Upper Tribunal dismissed Mr Nair's appeal against First-tier Tribunal rent repayment orders, upholding the decision to proceed with the hearing in his absence after refusing his repeated, insufficiently particularised requests for a remote hearing. The UT also held that the appellant's written financial material would not have altered the quantum and lifted the stay of enforcement.
Dr Rosh Jamal v London Borough of Enfield [2026] UKUT 104 (LC) 5 March 2026 This appeal concerned whether a lease clause requiring the landlord to notify tenants of estimated management/service charges before the start of the financial year made time of the essence and whether a late notice could nevertheless make estimated charges payable in advance. The Upper Tribunal held that time was of the essence for that notice and that the landlord’s late notice (after 1 April but before 1 July) did not make estimated charges immediately payable; the tenant remained liable only for actual charges after year end.
K&K Property Investments Limited v Southwark London Borough Council [2026] UKUT 97 (LC) 4 March 2026 This case concerns whether a registered underlease retained priority against a subsequently registered concurrent lease where the underlease was not noted on the individual register of the concurrent lease at the date of that registration, and whether that affected rights to possession and compensation on compulsory acquisition. The Tribunal identified and directed determination of that preliminary legal issue, recorded the parties' competing constructions of "the register" in section 23(1) LRA 1925, and noted HM Land Registry’s explanation that the omission resulted from a title-number change and caseworker error. The notes do not record the Tribunal’s final decision on the issue.
Luke Highet Bendram Jamieson v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2026] UKUT 103 (LC) 4 March 2026 This appeal to the Upper Tribunal challenged an FTT decision about apportionment of a landlord's managing-agent legal costs in the first, partial service-charge year under a shared-ownership lease and the FTT's exercise of discretion under s.20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and para 5A Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Upper Tribunal held the leaseholder was wholly successful on the apportionment issue and had been overcharged if required to pay a full year of the landlord's charges, and it substituted orders excluding the landlord's whole legal costs from the service/administration charge. The FTT's 50% limitation was set aside as outside the bounds of a just and equitable exercise of discretion.
Milon Miah & Anor v Anchor Court Management (Ipswich) Limited [2026] UKUT 98 (LC) 3 March 2026 This appeal concerned the construction of clause 3.11 of a long lease requiring "audited accounts" and an auditors' certificate before a lessee must pay any balancing service charge. The Upper Tribunal held that "audit" and "auditors" require external scrutiny (not internal preparation by the respondent) and that production of an auditors' certificate signed by external auditors is a precondition to an individual leaseholder's liability to pay the balancing charge. The tribunal also confirmed that interim payments under clause 3.9 are unaffected.
214 Bermondsey Street Limited v Crispin Corfe & Ors [2026] UKUT 96 (LC) 2 March 2026 This appeal concerned whether four service-charge invoices for fire-safety work at 214 Bermondsey Street were recoverable. The First-tier Tribunal allowed one invoice, disallowed another (not appealed) and rejected two Assessed Risk invoices; the Upper Tribunal found the FTT had overlooked explanations in the appellant's pleadings and should have given the appellant an opportunity to address a new substantive point the FTT raised, set aside those conclusions, and remitted the question of what reduced sum (if any) is reasonably payable given the FTT's adverse finding about the poor quality of the Assessed Risk report.
Elizabeth Roseanne Dobson & Anor v Alison Unsted & Anor [2026] UKUT 93 (LC) 2 March 2026 This Upper Tribunal appeal concerns a tiny triangular strip of land between 27 and 29 Pointers Hill and whether the appellants (or their predecessors) had the factual possession and intention to possess it for the ten‑year common‑law period prior to 2018. The First‑tier Tribunal found adverse possession only from 2018 when the area became a planted flower bed, rejecting earlier claims based on intermittent mowing and maintenance. Permission to appeal was granted on the narrow ground that the FTT may have erred about possession before 2018; the dispute over Schedule 6 was not decisive because paragraph 5(c) was accepted.
Robert Charles Hayward v Suffolk County Council [2026] UKUT 94 (LC) 2 March 2026 This appeal concerns whether the First-tier Tribunal correctly ordered rectification of the land register on the basis that Hayward had not been in adverse possession of the Disputed Land for the required ten-year period, and whether newly produced evidence (notably three Countryside Stewardship signs) should be admitted on appeal. The UT excluded some newly-tendered witness and payment evidence but provisionally admitted the signs as newly discovered documentary material of limited probative value because they were undated and partly concealed. The appeal remains live, with the UT treating the possession issue as primary and the signs as potentially material but not determinative on the present record.
Harnek Singh Samra & Anor v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2026] UKUT 83 (LC) 27 February 2026 This case concerns valuation and consequential compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1961 for a partially developed site at 103 Barclay Road and an adjacent site, vesting on 7 May 2014 after a compulsory purchase. The Tribunal assessed how pre-vesting works carried out by the claimants and reasonable remediation obligations for neighbouring properties affect the hypothetical purchaser's valuation and resulting compensation, and determined the compensation payable; the acquiring authority carried out selected remedial works (option 3A) to neighbours post-vesting.
Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited v On Tower UK Limited [2026] UKUT 89 (LC) 27 February 2026 This appeal concerned whether Icon Tower could resist imposition of a new statutory code agreement under paragraph 21(5) by showing an intention to redevelop land presently occupied by On Tower's mast. The First‑tier Tribunal found Icon lacked the requisite firm, unconditional intention to redevelop because its plan depended on mobile network operators migrating to a new mast and there was no reasonable prospect of that happening; the appeal challenges that factual finding and related legal characterisations (including whether replacing a mast is "redevelopment"). The Upper Tribunal was asked to determine the proper legal test for para 21(5) and whether the FTT was entitled to its findings.
Compare the Market Ltd v Karen Giles [2026] UKUT 77 (LC) 23 February 2026 This appeal concerned the rateable valuation of a hereditament made up of two separate office buildings (Pegasus House and Saxon House) assessed together. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting a 10% quantum (size) allowance and making a 5% allowance for Pegasus House's internal layout inefficiencies, determining a rateable value of £905,000. The VTE decision was overturned and the Tribunal treated layout and fragmentation as separate adjustments.
Southern Land Securities Limited v Zelda Reynolds [2026] UKUT 84 (LC) 23 February 2026 This appeal concerned a tenant's challenge to service charges for external repair and redecoration at 20–26 Elmwood Road and the First-tier Tribunal's finding that most redecoration costs should be disallowed as the works were of poor quality. The FTT treated the tenant's witness evidence as effectively uncontested because the landlord's respondent's statement was signed in the company name and no individual witness statements were put forward; the FTT therefore reduced recoverable redecoration costs and allowed limited professional fees. The Upper Tribunal allowed the landlord's appeal.
Secretary of State for Transport v Curzon Park Limited [2026] UKUT 73 (LC) 20 February 2026 This appeal concerns a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) for Curzon Park, Birmingham, granted by the council for a large mixed‑use scheme (up to 181,260 sqm, 7–41 storeys) and the Secretary of State’s challenge seeking inclusion of his smaller, grantable scheme (up to 138,175 sqm, up to 15 storeys). The Tribunal accepted that the Secretary of State’s scheme would have been grantable at the Valuation Date and should be included in the certificate. A key factual issue was whether, as of the Valuation Date, a notional planning application would have revealed the full extent and condition of the post‑Valuation Date‑discovered Roundhouse remains; the Roundhouse’s existence was known but its extent and condition were not. The case addresses how proximity to a Grade I listed Principal Station Building and development plan/tall‑building policies constrain appropriate scale and design for alternative development.
Secretary of State for Transport v John Lewis Partnership Pensions Trust [2026] UKUT 78 (LC) 20 February 2026 This appeal concerns a CAAD for land at Old Oak Common where Ealing certified a 722‑unit residential redevelopment; the Secretary of State challenged whether that scheme (or a lower‑height residential alternative or a commercial fallback) would have been an appropriate alternative in the "cancelled scheme world" at the 23 December 2017 valuation date. The Tribunal set out that it must apply the cancellation assumption, treat existing permissions, buildings completed by the valuation date and planning policies unconnected to the scheme as present in the hypothetical world, and decide whether a reasonable planning authority could have granted the CAAD scheme on ordinary planning grounds. The notes do not record the Tribunal’s final determination on whether the CAAD scheme (or alternatives) was appropriate.
Espresso Rooms UK Limited v Nicola Johnson [2026] UKUT 70 (LC) 17 February 2026 This appeal concerns the 2017 rating assessment of a ground-floor café at 77 Shaftesbury Avenue and whether the November 2017 letting of the premises should determine rateable value at the AVD (1 April 2015) and material day (27 December 2018). The parties advanced competing valuations (£75,000 appellant; £109,000 respondent) and disputed how much weight to give the actual letting and which comparables and time adjustments to use. The Tribunal recorded that the respondent conceded the VTE figure was excessive and that the appellant was at least partly successful; air conditioning allowance of £557 was agreed.
Talbot Group Limited v Kishorkumar Valji Khets Kotecha & Ors [2026] UKUT 67 (LC) 13 February 2026 This appeal concerns whether interim service charge demands made by the landlord in respect of two flats were payable under their differing lease terms and whether certain interim budget items were reasonable. The First-tier Tribunal held a large roof demand for Flat 14 was not payable because it was not demanded on a quarter day as required by that lease, but an equivalent roof demand for Flat 19 was payable under its "on demand" interim payment clause; it also found £300 administration charges payable and certain contingency interim charges unreasonable. The landlord had not produced year-end certification or carried out contractual balancing required by the leases, a fact noted but not dispositive of those outcomes.
Newton Poppleford and Harpford Parish Council v Winifred Preston & Anor [2026] UKUT 69 (LC) 12 February 2026 This appeal concerned a 1983 transfer of land to Newton Poppleford & Harpford Parish Council subject to a covenant limiting use to a doctors' surgery and the Council's 2023 s.84 application to permit other medical/health uses. The Tribunal held s.84(7) did not bar modification because the transfer was not gratuitous, and rejected that mere lack of demand for a doctors' surgery made the restriction obsolete; the application was recorded as allowed.
Paul Davies & Anor v Hazelle Jones [2026] UKUT 51 (LC) 10 February 2026 This appeal concerns Davies' s.84 LPA 1925 application to modify a 1971 plans-approval covenant affecting 15 Oaksway so they can implement planning permission for first-floor extensions and dormers after the neighbouring owner, Jones at no.11, refused consent. The key issues were whether the covenant impedes reasonable use of no.15 and still secures practical benefits of substantial value to no.11 (s.84(1)(aa)), and whether the proposed modification would injure the person entitled to the covenant (s.84(1)(c)). The tribunal received conflicting expert evidence on overlooking, massing and loss of garden privacy and recorded factual findings (including that planning permission had been granted) but no final dispositive order is recorded in the notes.
AP Wireless II (UK) Limited v EE Limited & Anor [2026] UKUT 45 (LC) 9 February 2026 This appeal concerns whether EE and Hutchison's post-2015 occupation of a rooftop telecommunications site was a tenancy at will or an implied periodic tenancy, and whether they validly served a 2023 Part 4 Electronic Communications Code notice seeking imposition of a new code agreement. The First-tier Tribunal held the occupiers were tenants at will, that a tenancy at will did not prevent a Part 4 application, and that the 2023 Notice was valid to permit a Reference. The Appellant (reversioner) was granted permission to appeal those findings to the Upper Tribunal; the Respondents advanced alternative jurisdictional grounds.
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v North Northamptonshire Council [2026] UKUT 52 (LC) 6 February 2026 This appeal concerned site‑licence conditions at Wilby Caravan Park, in particular condition 6 (prior written consent for layout changes) and conditions 11 (emergency access) and 34 (parking ratios). The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s imposition of a 28‑day determination requirement for requests under condition 6 but criticised the FTT’s additional deeming provision that treated non‑response or any refusal as a refusal to permit an appeal; conditions 11 and 34 were confirmed as not unduly burdensome. The appeal was allowed in part.
John Crofts v Valerie Jean Welsh [2026] UKUT 35 (LC) 2 February 2026 This appeal concerns whether Mrs Welsh had acquired title by adverse possession to part of a single field (including Disputed Land) and whether new Crown Court material and a statutory declaration undermined the FTT’s finding that she had occupied without permission. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT had intended the new material for a review hearing rather than for use on appeal, found no clear error in the FTT’s factual finding that there was no permission from the Popes, and treated the Crown Court ruling as of limited probative value. The FTT’s January 2025 decision was not set aside, but permission to appeal was granted on the discrete issue whether Mrs Welsh’s possession was by licence or permission of another.
Julia Beer & Anor v Daisy Dance & Anor [2026] UKUT 46 (LC) 2 February 2026 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had properly determined that statutory consultation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 had not been shown in respect of roof works. The Upper Tribunal found a serious procedural irregularity because documentary evidence of consultation referred to in the earlier FTT decision was not placed before the FTT and therefore the FTT could not properly decide that issue. The UT set aside the FTT’s decision on consultation and remitted that issue to the FTT for further consideration and directions.
Claudia Julia Holy v Brentford Lock Island Residents' Association Limited [2026] UKUT 44 (LC) 29 January 2026 This appeal concerned whether timber balcony floors at Brentford Lock Island formed part of lessees' demised premises or fell to the management company, and whether the management company could replace them with a non‑combustible alternative and recover the cost. The UT held that "floor surface only" demised the two‑dimensional upper surface and excluded the timber planks and supporting bearers, and that the management company’s covenant to keep the Buildings and every part thereof in good and substantial repair made it primarily responsible for repairing and, if necessary, replacing the balcony flooring. The tribunal declined to authorise wholesale replacement as a matter of law: whether comprehensive replacement falls within that repairing covenant is a fact‑and‑degree question that must be assessed on up‑to‑date factual evidence.
Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited & Ors v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC) 27 January 2026 This appeal challenges remediation contribution orders (RCOs) made by the First-tier Tribunal on 24 January 2025 requiring specified respondents to contribute jointly and severally £13,262,119.08 for remediation of fire-safety defects at Vista Tower, Stevenage. Key issues are whether the FTT had jurisdiction to make joint-and-several orders, whether making the RCOs was just and equitable and as to quantum and allocation, and whether the FTT correctly treated the concepts of “building safety risk” and reasonableness of remedial costs given changes from the CAN to PAS9980 guidance. The Decision records extensive factual findings about investigations, BSF engagement, grant funding obligations, procurement for remedial works and application of evolving guidance.
Carlow House RTM Company Limited v Stephen Francis Colchester & Ors [2026] UKUT 33 (LC) 26 January 2026 This appeal concerns whether fourth-floor ("Category A") leaseholders must contribute under their leases to costs of repairing a glazed atrium roof that the RTM Company paid for in 2022. The FTT had held neither Category A nor B leaseholders liable and ordered reimbursement, relying on a 2017 consent order; the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding the FTT's reliance on that consent order problematic and examining the lease wording and other documents instead. The Upper Tribunal indicated that a consent order between a landlord and leaseholders does not automatically extinguish leaseholder service-charge liability and that a consent order cannot be assumed to bind or vary the rights of a successor manager/RTM company that was not a party.
Robert Vernon v Orbit Housing Association [2026] UKUT 19 (LC) 23 January 2026 This appeal concerns whether Orbit Housing Association is precluded by issue estoppel from re-litigating whether Mr Vernon received benefit from a Scheme Based Support Charge (SBSC) after the Upper Tribunal (2023) upheld a First-tier Tribunal finding that no benefit to Mr Vernon was shown for 2021/22 and 2022/23. The FTT in 2025, relying on new documentary and witness evidence, found that overnight care services were provided for the benefit of all residents and that the SBSC was reasonably incurred for 2023/24 and 2024/25; the gateway question on this appeal is whether that 2025 decision is barred by the earlier finding. If issue estoppel does not apply because the 2025 evidence qualifies as further material not previously obtainable with reasonable diligence, Mr Vernon will be liable for the SBSC as found by the FTT (2025).
Kirsty Crossland & Anor v Keith Anthony Fritchley [2026] UKUT 22 (LC) 22 January 2026 The Crosslands sought to implement planning permission for major extensions to Wellfield House but were constrained by a 1998 restrictive covenant benefitting the neighbouring Lodge owned by Mr Fritchley. They amended their case to seek modification under s.84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925, asking for a carve‑out tied to the planning permission and a clause that consent to development not be unreasonably withheld; the Tribunal allowed the application on that basis and recorded the objector's later consent to the proposed clause. The Tribunal treated expert evidence on privacy, overlooking, visual amenity and light as material but noted limitations where an expert had not inspected the Lodge interior.
The Eastside Partnership Nominee Company Limited & Anor v The Secretary of State for Transport [2026] UKUT 9 (LC) 15 January 2026 This case concerned competing Certificates of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) for a 1.07 ha HS2-acquired site in Eastside, Birmingham, with the central dispute whether a CAAD limited predominantly to Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) was acceptable versus a greater proportion of general housing, and whether a tall tower was acceptable given heritage policy. The Tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal against the Council's 2020 CAAD and allowed Eastside's appeal against the Council's deemed nil-determination, finding the site could accommodate substantial mixed-use development but that the proper mix and scale had to be judged against local plan policies, need and heritage impacts.
The Secretary of State for Transport v Birmingham City University [2026] UKUT 10 (LC) 15 January 2026 This appeal concerned whether a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) for part of New Canal Street in Birmingham should stand or be replaced by a more limited alternative proposed by the Secretary of State. The Tribunal accepted that a positive CAAD should issue but held that an unrestricted "menu of uses" CAAD (as certified by the Council and advanced in amended form by BCU) risks non‑compliance with development‑plan requirements for well‑designed mixed‑use development unless minimum floorspace controls are imposed, and indicated a revised, more constrained certificate was required. The decision treats heritage, park and townscape considerations as material constraints on height and massing.
Ellen Stokki & Ors v Ahmed Abu Choudhury [2026] UKUT 11 (LC) 9 January 2026 This Upper Tribunal appeal challenged the First-tier Tribunal's refusal of jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order because the tenants' application was one day late. The UT held the offence was a continuing one but, applying Moh v Rimal and treating fractions of a day in the landlord's favour, concluded the offence had ceased before the relevant 12‑month period and dismissed the appeal.
Stuart John Pilbrow v Nicola Jane Eileen Glanville & Anor [2026] UKUT 8 (LC) 8 January 2026 This appeal concerned costs after the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) made no order when the appellant withdrew an adverse possession application following the respondents' late disclosure that the land was held on trust. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred in law by taking an irrelevant consideration — that the appellant might not have succeeded absent the trust — and that the respondents' failure to disclose the trust was unreasonable. The UT substituted an order that the respondents pay the appellant's FTT costs, to be summarily assessed on the standard basis.
Simon Birch v Paul Meredith [2026] UKUT 6 (LC) 7 January 2026 This appeal concerned whether omission of the landlord's address in service-charge demands under s.47(2) LTA 1987 invalidated the demands and whether the First-tier Tribunal properly exercised its discretion under s.20C LTA 1985 and Sch 11 para 5A CLRA 2002 to prevent recovery of landlord costs. The Upper Tribunal held that s.47(2) non-compliance has a suspensory effect only and does not invalidate demands, that the FTT erred in treating the omission as rendering sums not payable, and substituted its own costs decision, finding the landlord overwhelmingly successful on the substantive charges and reversing the FTT's exclusion of landlord costs.
E14 Limited v Limehouse East Management Limited [2025] UKUT 426 (LC) 6 January 2026 This appeal concerns the construction of the defined term "Commercial Block" in varied 200-year leases for three ground-floor units (GFUs) in Basin Approach Block F, and whether the 2016 variation altered that term to cover only the GFUs or effectively the whole Building (excluding lifts). The First-tier Tribunal accepted the respondent's broad reading; the Upper Tribunal judge rejected both the appellant's ultra-narrow and the FTT/respondent's overly broad readings as implausible or purposeless. The judge held the narrow construction would render substantial parts of Part A ineffective and the broad construction would effect a radical, implausible change by minor wording alone, signalling the need for a different construction. No final dispositive substituted meaning was announced in the notes provided.
James Anthony Farrell v Hugh Garforth-Bles & Anor [2025] UKUT 429 (LC) 29 December 2025 Mr Farrell applied under s.84 LPA 1925 to modify 1983 restrictive covenants on 540 Fulham Palace Road to permit a range of Class E uses; the beneficiaries (leaseholder and management company) opposed the broad change and offered only a narrower concession to allow Class E(e) medical/health uses. The Tribunal refused the application. The decision records concerns that the applicant’s proposed broad Class E modification was insufficiently defined, potentially unworkable/enforceable, and that the covenants continued to secure practical benefits to the beneficiaries.
The Kingdom Hall Trust v Peter Robert Davies [2025] UKUT 427 (LC) 19 December 2025 The Upper Tribunal dismissed both the appellant's appeal and the respondent's cross‑appeal, upholding the decision below, and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs. The Tribunal extended time to admit the respondent's slightly late costs application, found the cross‑appeal was not unreasonable, and summarily assessed and allowed the respondent's costs with specific small deductions.
Xiaohan Xu & Ors v USAF Management 11 Limited & Ors [2025] UKUT 422 (LC) 19 December 2025 This appeal concerned the quantum of a rent repayment order (RRO) made by the First-tier Tribunal against landlords who failed to obtain required selective licences for student studio flats from 1 April 2022 until licence application/issue in mid‑2023. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the FTT did not err in law in treating the absence of actual harm to tenants as a legitimate factor in assessing the seriousness of the offence and in awarding 50% of available rent. The UT emphasised that the FTT had considered the statutory s.44(4) factors and that its discretionary assessment would not be displaced absent error or irrationality.
Angelo Perotti v Amboh Properties Limited [2025] UKUT 421 (LC) 16 December 2025 This appeal concerned whether a s.13 Housing Act 1988 Form 4 notice which proposed a new rent expressed as a monthly sum was valid for an assured periodic tenancy where rent had historically been payable quarterly. The First-tier Tribunal ultimately held the original notice valid, converted the proposed monthly figure into an equivalent quarterly sum and fixed a new rent of £1,150 per month (equivalent £3,450 per quarter) effective 20 May 2025; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s challenge. The landlord’s later served notice and purported withdrawal of the original notice did not defeat the FTT’s determination and the appeal.
Investview Limited v Tandridge District Council [2025] UKUT 405 (LC) 11 December 2025 This appeal concerns prohibition orders served on 15 self-contained flats at Survey House for a Category 2 "crowding and space" hazard under the HHSRS, upheld by the First-tier Tribunal. The FTT rejected the use of HMO size standards by analogy for self-contained flats, accepted NDSS and the Metric Handbook as relevant comparators, and accepted the local authority's HHSRS scoring placing the hazard in Band D, thereby upholding the orders. The appellant obtained permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on whether HMO standards were wrongly disregarded and whether the HHSRS calculation was properly accepted.
Owain Geraint Lewis-Han & Anor v Mary Yvonne Williams OBE & Anor [2025] UKUT 401 (LC) 8 December 2025 This appeal concerned title to a short driveway (the Disputed Land). The First-tier Tribunal found that a lost 1960 conveyance did include the Disputed Land and that the appellants had not established adverse possession because they lacked exclusive possession and intention to possess for the required period. The appellants' later acts (mainly from 2019) were insufficient to found long possession, and the FTT accepted that omission from first registration could be explained by changed topography.
Hawksmoor Wren Limited v Farah Cohen [2025] UKUT 398 (LC) 4 December 2025 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) misinterpreted lease and regulatory covenants and whether it gave adequate reasons. The Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the appeal in part, finding additional breaches: placing structures on the terrace in breach of regulation 15 and non‑residential use affecting the landlord’s insurance in breach of clause 3(9); other alleged breaches (including nuisance and structural alteration) were not established. The UT also held that AIRBNB use under a licence did not amount to parting with possession.
David Cochrane v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] UKUT 395 (LC) 2 December 2025 This appeal concerns a Part I Land Compensation Act claim by Mr Cochrane for depreciation of 8 Longsight Lane following A34/A555 highway works, with the valuation date 16 November 2019. The tribunal found traffic increased but expert noise and air‑quality monitoring and modelling indicated only minor/small changes at monitoring sites and, on the evidence, awarded £10,000 for depreciation. The claimant disputed the representativeness of the monitoring (no measurements at the rear garden or bund) but the tribunal proceeded on written evidence and made no site inspection.
Ian Dunkley & Anor v Island Park (Medway) Limited [2025] UKUT 393 (LC) 24 November 2025 This appeal concerns whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had jurisdiction under section 4 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to remedy charges and access controls imposed by Residential Marine Ltd (RML) over land outside the protected mobile‑home site, which the appellants say are enforced by the site owner, Island Park (Medway) Ltd. The FTT held it lacked jurisdiction to order cessation of matters imposed by RML on land outside the protected site, but granted permission to appeal because of the unusual factual matrix (including common directorship) and the question whether the respondent was effectively enforcing RML’s measures. The FTT expressed scepticism about RML’s justifications for the charges and access restrictions but treated that as outside its remit in the application.
Ian Jonathan Rose v Bracknell Gate Properties Limited [2025] UKUT 386 (LC) 24 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether a lease clause (1(e)) allowed the landlord to make multiple or varying service-charge demands each quarter or only a single annual sum payable by instalments on quarter days, and whether professionals' fees for major electrical works required s.20 consultation (the latter addressed but not finally decided in the provided notes). The UT held clause 1(e) properly construed as permitting one annual sum on account, payable by instalments on the usual quarter days, and allowed the appeal on that ground, declaring the December Demand not payable. The judgment continued to consider the s.20 consultation point thereafter (not resolved in these notes).
Oxford Hotel Investments Limited v Great Yarmouth Borough Council [2025] UKUT 387 (LC) 24 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether provision of a microwave in hotel rooms amounts to "cooking facilities" under s.254(8) Housing Act 2004 and whether the presence of any single basic amenity prevents a building meeting the s.254(2)(f) standard test for an HMO. The Upper Tribunal held that a microwave alone does not constitute cooking facilities and upheld the FTT's finding that the building lacked required amenities, confirming the HMO declaration for the St George Hotel.
Portsmouth City Council v Elizabeth Collins [2025] UKUT 389 (LC) 21 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether the First‑tier Tribunal erred in revoking a licence condition requiring 87 Binsteed Road (a 4‑bed HMO) to reduce occupancy from four to three. The Upper Tribunal allowed Portsmouth City Council's appeal, finding the FTT had misassessed usable communal space and the kitchen/lounge layout and therefore was wrong to conclude the property was suitable for four occupiers. The FTT's revocation of the reduction condition was set aside.
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Susan Kram & Ors [2025] UKUT 375 (LC) 20 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether Wyldecrest overcharged residents of Tranquillity Park by billing them for electricity partly supplied free by on-site solar panels. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT's substantive finding that residents were overcharged because Wyldecrest had not paid for the solar-generated power yet charged residents for it, and directed repayment of £39,194.92 less amounts unpaid by some residents. The Tribunal set aside the FTT's directions to prepare a reconciliation and to certify sub-meters, and held that the residents' association was not an appropriate applicant.
Bruntwood Aviva Limited v Lucy Formela-Osborne (Valuation Officer) [2025] UKUT 382 (LC) 18 November 2025 This appeal concerned the effective date of the Valuation Officer's 19 October 2022 alteration to the 2017 rating list creating 20 unlet car parking hereditaments at Centre City, Birmingham. The question was whether regulation 14(1B) refers to the underlying factual circumstances (existence/control of the spaces) or to the state of the list/earlier alterations. The tribunal concluded that the relevant "circumstances giving rise to the alteration" can include the underlying factual circumstances that made the list inaccurate, and upheld an effective date of 1 April 2017; the appeal was dismissed.
Cemex UK Operations Limited v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] UKUT 376 (LC) 18 November 2025 This appeal concerns compensation for loss of profits following compulsory acquisition of Cemex's rail sleeper business; the main dispute was how unit costs behave as volumes fall and the economic effect of contractual volume surcharges. The Tribunal accepted the parties' agreed assumptions on inflation, discounting and that the no-scheme contract would include surcharges, resolved the accountants' dispute about cost behaviour, and assessed compensation at £29,933,000. The accountants' divergent positions (roughly £30.53m v £10.36m) were reconciled by the Tribunal's findings on the function of surcharges and cost behaviour.
Neil Hood v Southern Land Securities Ltd & Anor [2025] UKUT 378 (LC) 5 November 2025 This appeal concerns a First-tier Tribunal costs order against Mr Hood after he rejected respondents’ settlement offers to grant a separate storage lease of the loft above his flat. The FTT found his refusal unreasonable and ordered costs from 5 February 2025; the Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal on the basis it was arguable Mr Hood obtained a better outcome (enlargement of the demise) and directed written submissions. The respondents argue the offer was effectively equivalent to the FTT’s order and so justified the costs award.
Steven Robert Coogan v Maryam Taheri [2025] UKUT 370 (LC) 4 November 2025 This appeal concerns landlords' application for the costs of a successful appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a First-tier Tribunal costs order. The Upper Tribunal held that correspondence between parties did not constitute a binding agreement to pay costs and that the tenants did not act unreasonably in bringing or conducting the appeal; accordingly the landlords' application for the appeal costs was dismissed. No order as to costs of and incidental to the appeal was made.
Jasbinder Weerasekera v Satinder Rait [2025] UKUT 368 (LC) 30 October 2025 This appeal concerns whether the First-tier Tribunal mischaracterised the appellant's 24 March 2025 email (sent after she had withdrawn her references) as an application for permission to appeal rather than as a request to reinstate proceedings under Rule 22(5). The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal out of time on the narrow ground that there is a realistic prospect the FTT erred in its characterisation, and ordered the appeal to be determined on written representations limited to that procedural question; substantive estate disputes were not to be decided.
John Williams v London Borough of Hackney [2025] UKUT 371 (LC) 30 October 2025 This appeal concerned whether service‑charge items were recoverable from the lessee of Flat 5 at Hensley Point, in particular whether the lease "Estate" covered the wider Gascoyne Estate and whether costs for works (notably heating installations in other flats) fell to be borne by the appellant. The Upper Tribunal held the First‑tier Tribunal erred in treating a broad definition of "Estate" as determinative for most items and directed that liability should be assessed by reference to the Ninth Schedule obligations as framed for the Block and the Reserved Property; the appeal was allowed and further item‑by‑item consideration was required.
Keith Howard Barton v Platform Housing Limited [2025] UKUT 369 (LC) 30 October 2025 This appeal concerned whether a fixed annual sum payable by an assured periodic tenant was a "service charge" under s.18(1)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, given that the landlord set the charge annually by notice without reconciling it to actual costs. The First-tier Tribunal struck out the tenant's application for want of jurisdiction, following earlier Lands Tribunal authority (notably Home Group Ltd v Lewis) that an annual unilateral notice unlinked to actual costs does not satisfy the requirement that the amount "varies or may vary according to the relevant costs." The appeal was dismissed.
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Marie Harper & Ors [2025] UKUT 366 (LC) 27 October 2025 This appeal concerned whether a statutory presumption that pitch fees rise with RPI could be displaced where a loss of amenity (low water pressure) was caused by a third party. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's factual findings that the appellants knew of the longstanding water-pressure problem, could have acted earlier, and that the loss of amenity justified displacing the RPI presumption. The appeal was dismissed and the FTT's decision to keep the 2023 pitch fees unchanged was confirmed.
Barry Maguire & Anor v Sathita Phanphet & Anor [2025] UKUT 361 (LC) 24 October 2025 This appeal concerned whether first‑floor lessees breached lease covenants by carrying out refurbishment works at 25 Ronald Park Avenue. The Upper Tribunal held the First‑tier Tribunal had erred in law in construing the covenant against removal of the lessor's fixtures and found that five internal doors, skirting boards, the kitchen, the bathroom and a stud wall had been removed without consent. The UT rejected the freeholder's complaints about insurance (no insurer or expert evidence) and confirmed the FTT was entitled not to reopen contested findings on nuisance/noisy works on the record before it.
Sleaford House Tenants Association v Poplar Harca [2025] UKUT 359 (LC) 22 October 2025 This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the First-tier Tribunal's refusal to certify a residents' association under section 29 (Landlord and Tenant Act 1985). The core issue was whether the FTT correctly counted "qualifying tenants" and members (and thus applied the 50% threshold in regulation 4(1) of the 2018 Regulations) when the original application covered two blocks. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was entitled to refuse the certificate on the material before it because the application was for both blocks, the association had 22 members, and there were 97 relevant long leasehold flats across both blocks; the appeal was dismissed.
Peter Calnan v Stack House Residents (Oxted) Limited [2025] UKUT 342 (LC) 20 October 2025 This appeal concerns the meaning and application of a lease covenant requiring the tenant to furnish floors "with sufficient underfelt and carpets to minimise the induction of sound" after the tenant installed vinyl over an acoustic mat and later laid wall-to-wall carpet without underfelt. The FTT found the tenant in continuing breach, treating the obligation as requiring carpets to cover entire rooms and underfelt to be contiguous, but the correctness and specificity of that conclusion were challenged on the ground that "sufficient" must be judged by reference to the outcome (sound attenuation) and by what was reasonably required when the covenant was made. The appeal raises whether the FTT was wrong to treat the outcome of sound reduction as irrelevant and whether its determination was sufficiently specific for forfeiture/notice purposes.
Christopher Royle (Valuation Officer) [2025] UKUT 343 (LC) 17 October 2025 This appeal concerned whether digital bus-shelter advertising rights should be valued at a 6:1 multiplier of static-display base values for the assessment day (AVD) 1 April 2015. The Upper Tribunal, on unopposed written representations, held the P&M Regulations were not relevant and that there was sufficient evidence to apply a 6:1 ratio, reinstating revised rateable values for the 21 hereditaments in the 2017 list. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal directed revised RVs in the Appendix.
Graham Victor Baker & Anor v Alan Cucknell & Ors [2025] UKUT 339 (LC) 14 October 2025 This appeal concerned an application under section 84(1)(aa) and (c) of the Law of Property Act 1925 by Mr and Mrs Baker to modify a 1999 restrictive covenant so they could replace a workshop with a permitted three‑bed bungalow. The Upper Tribunal allowed the application, finding on inspection and on the evidence that the covenant did not secure practical benefits of substantial value such that modification should be refused and that diminution could be addressed by compensation; the Tribunal noted deficiencies in the applicants' expert valuation and impact material but proceeded to exercise its discretion. The modification was limited to the building permitted by the planning permission.
Nofax Station Road Limited v The London Borough of Barnet [2025] UKUT 325 (LC) 13 October 2025 This appeal concerns a costs dispute after the Tribunal awarded the claimant £1,510,000 in a compulsory purchase reference. The claimant had made an unconditional offer of £975,000 and the acquiring authority had offered £325,000; the Tribunal found for the claimant overall but rejected the claimant’s planning case (planning expert Mr Dear), accepting valuation evidence. The principal issues are whether the claimant should recover costs of its planning expert, whether costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis, and whether payment of the award should be deferred. The Tribunal applied s.4(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (presuming costs run from the claimant’s offer unless special reasons exist) while noting its broader discretion under s.29/Rule 10 to make costs orders for earlier periods.
Steven Michael Booler v Sarfraz Yousaf [2025] UKUT 340 (LC) 10 October 2025 This appeal concerned whether two leases from J C Decaux (2011 and 2018) included a small triangular parcel whose occupation by Mr Booler formed the basis of his claim to be registered for adverse possession. The Upper Tribunal found the 2011 and 2018 leases did not include the parcel, preferring the 2011 lease plan, a photograph and FTT findings over a later unsigned email and a copy Land Registry plan. The appeal was allowed, the Land Registry was directed to give effect to Mr Booler's adverse possession application, and costs were awarded to him.
Mehrunnisa Alikhan Ahmed Khan v Wolverhampton City Council [2025] UKUT 335 (LC) 9 October 2025 This Upper Tribunal decision assessed compensation for compulsory acquisition of 45 Springhill Road, finding the market value at the assumed vesting date (2 August 2022) to be £150,000 and awarding that sum with statutory interest. The claimant's unparticularised allegations of removal of possessions were rejected and no disturbance award was made, and no basic loss payment was awarded because the claimant had not made a written claim.
Canary Riverside Estate Management Limited & Ors v J Abrahart & Ors [2025] UKUT 320 (LC) 30 September 2025 This appeal concerned whether three respondents could recover costs after the appellants’ challenge to an FTT case-management decision was dismissed. The Tribunal held the respondents’ costs applications were filed outside the 14‑day limit in rule 10(10) but granted an 8‑day extension under rule 5(3) because the delay was trivial and caused no prejudice, and it found the appellants’ appeal had no real prospect of success given the required appellate restraint on case‑management decisions. Costs will be dealt with further in the judgment.
Deritend Investments (Birkdale) Limited v Fung Tai Engineering Company Limited [2025] UKUT 324 (LC) 30 September 2025 This appeal concerned the correct premium for a statutory lease extension of Flat 2E, Hyde Park Mansions (valuation date 6 October 2023; 54.71 years unexpired). The FTT started from a February 2024 open‑market sale, adjusted it for Act rights and for time, used six on‑estate transactional comparables with percentage adjustments and equal weighting to derive extended‑lease and FHVP figures, and fixed a premium of £159,000. The Upper Tribunal reviewed the paper record and dismissed the appeal.
Simon Nelson v Southern Electric Power Distribution [2025] UKUT 300 (LC) 30 September 2025 This appeal concerns a costs determination after the Tribunal awarded Mr Nelson £47,250 for loss from a Secretary of State-granted wayleave to Southern Electric Power Distribution (SEPD). Key issues were whether SEPD’s unconditional 12 May 2025 offer engaged s.4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 for costs consequences, what costs (including a litigant-in-person’s time) were recoverable and for what period, and whether Rule 10(3)(b) (costs for unreasonable conduct) remains available where s.4 applies. The Tribunal held that costs in Schedule 4, paragraph 7 proceedings are to be determined in accordance with s.4 LCA 1961 and the Tribunal Rules, and proceeded to determine issues including reliance on the replacement expert and various interlocutory applications; no final costs award is recorded in the notes provided.
Afshan Mughai & Anor v Busola Samuel-Ougundana [2025] UKUT 318 (LC) 29 September 2025 The Upper Tribunal allowed landlords' appeal and set aside a rent repayment order made by the First-tier Tribunal because the FTT had served proceedings and directions on the landlords' letting agent without evidence that the landlords had authorised service on the agent. The landlords did not receive notice, did not attend the hearing, and only learned of the order many months later; consequently the order was set aside. The respondent may apply to the FTT for directions if she wishes to pursue the claim further.
Quintain City Park Gate Birmingham Limited v The Secretary of State for Transport [2025] UKUT 312 (LC) 26 September 2025 Quintain appealed under s.18 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 for a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) for land taken for Curzon Street HS2 station, with valuation date 17 July 2018. The Tribunal held it must apply the statutory cancellation assumption and decide between the parties' competing schemes on the evidence, exercising a judicial function narrower than a local planning authority and unable to iteratively redesign proposals; it found the Secretary of State's scheme was one that could reasonably have been expected at the valuation date while Quintain sought a larger development. The appeal will proceed for the Tribunal to determine which certificate to issue on the evidence; affordable housing will be considered later.
Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.1 Ltd & Anor v Penelope de Valk & Ors [2025] UKUT 298 (LC) 16 September 2025 This appeal concerns whether paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 applies to a proposed remediation scheme for the timber‑framed glazed façade of Centre Point House, and so whether qualifying leaseholders are excused from paying service charges for parts of the works. The First‑tier Tribunal found the façade was defective and that Part 5 BSA protections excused some lessees from paying amounts attributable to "cladding remediation"; the Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal on specified grounds challenging the FTT’s construction and application of paragraph 8 and the characterisation of the façade and works. The appeal focuses on whether particular elements of the Proposed Scheme remediate a "relevant defect" and whether the existing façade is an "unsafe cladding system" that "forms the outer wall" within paragraph 8.
Andrew Rees v Beth Atyeo [2025] UKUT 301 (LC) 5 September 2025 This appeal concerned a Rent Assessment Committee decision fixing a new rent for 1 Eaglesbush Close. The Upper Tribunal held there is an unrestricted right of appeal on a point of law from a Rent Assessment Committee, and that an inspection required by the 1971 Regulations must be carried out by the committee as a whole; a single-member inspection was a serious procedural defect. The Committee's decision was set aside and the matter remitted to a differently constituted committee for re-determination.
Canary Riverside Estate Management Limited & Ors v Leaseholders Represented by The Residents' Association of Canary Riverside [2025] UKUT 246 (LC) 5 September 2025 This appeal concerned FTT case management directions listing linked applications about renewal/variation of a tribunal-appointed manager's Order and related remediation funding and responsibilities for a building. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was entitled to direct the linked matters to a single final hearing in October 2025 and had properly considered prosecution risk and other case-management factors. The appeal was dismissed in respect of the grounds challenged and the applications remain listed for the final hearing.
Eastern Pyramid Group Corporation SA & Ors v Spire House RTM Company Limited [2025] UKUT 292 (LC) 4 September 2025 This appeal concerns an RTM company’s application under Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to vary leases at Spire House so as to permit larger advance interim service charges to fund urgent tower repairs. The First-tier Tribunal amended the leases’ Interim Maintenance Charge clause to allow a fair and reasonable estimate (in the lessor’s opinion) of half the Maintenance Charge and intra-year adjustments; the landlord and two leaseholders appealed to the Upper Tribunal challenging the FTT’s exercise of discretion under ss.35–38. The FTT accepted the RTM company’s case that the leases failed to make satisfactory provision for recovery of necessary service-charge expenditure and authorised the variation, subject to consideration of prejudice and compensation.
Kevin James Harrison-Ellis & Anor v Stuart Gerald Hunt & Anor [2025] UKUT 295 (LC) 2 September 2025 This appeal concerns an application under s.84 to discharge or modify 1965 restrictive covenants that limited Hillside to a single‑storey dwelling; the applicants carried out works converting it to a two‑storey house with dormers and a higher ridge in breach of those covenants. The tribunal found the works were implemented with planning permission but are nonetheless impeded by the covenants, and it considered whether the objectors’ later redevelopment of their property (opening a new access and removing screening) and other changes affect the balance of injury and obsolescence under s.84. No final disposal is recorded in the provided notes.
Steven Robert Coogan & Anor v Maryam Taheri & Anor [2025] UKUT 293 (LC) 1 September 2025 This appeal challenges a First-tier Tribunal costs order for £70,000 made against tenants under rule 13(1)(b) following four linked applications about 9A Belsize Crescent. The FTT applied the three-stage Willow Court approach, found much of the tenants’ pleaded case hopeless or vexatious (only one s.22 allegation was proved) and exercised its discretion to award costs. The Upper Tribunal is asked to review whether the FTT misapplied the unreasonable-conduct test and whether it erred in exercising its discretion as to liability and quantum.
The Kingdom Hall Trust v Peter Robert Davies [2025] UKUT 294 (LC) 29 August 2025 This appeal concerns whether a prescriptive easement of way was acquired over charity land. The FTT found sufficient user to establish prescription, held that a grant of an easement over charity land is a "disposition" requiring statutory sanction (Vires Point) so a lost grant cannot be presumed where required consent is not shown, but also held that a presumed lost grant may be treated as having been made before the land became charitable (Date Point). The Upper Tribunal agreed with the FTT on the Vires Point; the Date Point was decided for the respondent at first instance.
On Tower UK Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited [2025] UKUT 280 (LC) 27 August 2025 This appeal challenges FTT-imposed standard-form Code leases for 12 telecoms sites, specifically whether the leases should allow the operator broader rights to share the site and contractual rights beyond the paragraph 17 minimum. The Upper Tribunal was asked to determine how paragraph 23(5) (minimising loss or damage) and the paragraph 34(13) factors should guide imposition of sharing terms and whether the FTT applied the established "Dale Park" approach correctly. Permission to appeal was granted and the respondent's cross-appeal was directed to be heard rolled-up with the appeal.
Wei Xiaoli v Nicola Johnson (Valuation Officer) [2025] UKUT 291 (LC) 26 August 2025 This appeal concerned the rateable valuation of a ground-floor and basement retail shop at 21A Landor Road, Clapham, primarily disputing measurement, zoning depths/areas and treatment of ancillary/staff and partitioned areas. The Tribunal preferred the Valuation Officer’s measured areas, accepted the VO’s locally applied two-zone-and-remainder (A/B/R) zoning approach and adjusted the tone to £390/m2 Zone A; the appeal was allowed and the assessment determined at RV £16,000 (the VO had offered settlement at RV £15,000).
Rafiul Islam v Thanet District Council [2025] UKUT 281 (LC) 19 August 2025 The Upper Tribunal allowed Mr Islam's appeal from the First-tier Tribunal's refusal to extend time to appeal a £7,500 financial penalty, finding the FTT had not applied the correct multi-stage approach to procedural defaults. The UT held the delay (just over three weeks) was short, caused no prejudice to the council, and that refusing the appeal would be disproportionate; it extended time and remitted the matter to the FTT for directions.
Zafar Quyoom & Ors v The Borough Council of Middlesbrough [2025] UKUT 274 (LC) 19 August 2025 This appeal concerns valuation of a vehicle-dismantling business compulsorily acquired by Middlesbrough Borough Council, focusing on how to value end-of-life vehicle (ELV) stock and whether claimants can recover both historic stock value and future going-concern profits. The Tribunal rejected valuing stock by reference to the cost of acquiring equivalent vehicles and held stock should be valued by reference to resale/retail value subject to discounts; it also held claimants cannot pursue inconsistent heads (historic stock value and future trading/going-concern value) simultaneously. Further factual assessment of witness and expert evidence was required to determine precise sums.
Next Location Company Limited v London Borough of Haringey [2025] UKUT 279 (LC) 18 August 2025 Next Location Company Ltd appealed the FTT's upholding of a £10,000 civil penalty for managing an unlicensed HMO. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT gave no adequate reasons for concluding Next Location was a "person managing" the property and similarly failed to explain the penalty, set aside the FTT decision and substituted its own decision that Next Location was not liable to pay the penalty. The respondent was not permitted to rely on further evidence to support the FTT's unsupported finding.
Lesley Ann Garton v Wheatcroft Land (Thoroton) Limited & Ors [2025] UKUT 253 (LC) 13 August 2025 This is an application under s.84 Law of Property Act 1925 by Lesley Ann Garton to discharge or modify a restrictive covenant and a limited right of way affecting land transferred to her in 2019, intended to serve a new dwelling for which planning permission was obtained. The Tribunal found the 2019 transfer imposed both (i) a prohibition on erecting buildings and use limited to private garden and (ii) a reservation limiting the right of way to purposes connected with use of the land as a private garden, and refused the application. The parties disputed whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to modify the express limitation on the reserved right of way; that jurisdictional point was central to the decision.
Robert Schroeder v Lucy Dyer (Valuation Officer) [2025] UKUT 256 (LC) 13 August 2025 This appeal concerned whether parts of a Christmas-tree business hereditament qualified as agricultural buildings occupied with agricultural land and “used solely in connection with agricultural operations” (Schedule 5, 1988 Act) so as to be deleted from the Rating List. The tribunal held the appellant’s case was a deletion challenge (not a valuation challenge) and, on the facts, significant non‑agricultural uses (seasonal retail, café/grotto, stocking and substantial open‑sided sales areas) meant the hereditament could not be treated as exempt; the appeal was dismissed. The Valuation Officer later reduced the RV but the original higher entry remained on the closed 2017 List.
Global 100 Limited v Sasha Jam Ross & Ors [2025] UKUT 264 (LC) 12 August 2025 This appeal concerns rent repayment orders made against Global 100 arising from a property‑guardian scheme at the Old Moselle School. The FTT found the council’s written agreement with GGM was a licence (not a lease), that the council did not receive payments, and that the statutory exception in Schedule 14/s.263(3)(b) did not apply because the arrangement relied on was not one "by virtue of which" GGM received payments; RROs were therefore made against Global 100. Permission to appeal was granted on the narrower legal issue whether "arrangement" should be read more widely than the written licence.
Anna Jamroz v Mohammed Javid Tariq Ali [2025] UKUT 265 (LC) 11 August 2025 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had jurisdiction to grant a rent repayment order (RRO) because the tenant’s RRO application was emailed at 11:15pm on the last day of the 12‑month limitation period. The Upper Tribunal held the application was made in time because an application is made on the date it is sent to the FTT by email, including when sent outside office hours, and that the 12‑month period includes the whole day the application is made. The UT allowed the appeal, affirmed the FTT’s jurisdiction, and confirmed the FTT’s alternative findings that the landlord committed the offence and must repay £2,790 plus £320 fees.
Deepak Shah & Anor v Julian Thomas & Anor [2025] UKUT 263 (LC) 7 August 2025 The Upper Tribunal allowed landlords' appeal against a First‑tier Tribunal decision that delayed the start date of an increased rent. The UT held the FTT had no evidential basis to postpone the rent from the landlords' proposed date of 3 September 2024 to 9 December 2024 and substituted a decision that the new rent takes effect on 3 September 2024. The UT also refused to permit fresh evidence produced after the hearing as a basis to justify the postponement.
Paul Alexander Constantine v Aaron Spencer Bird [2025] UKUT 258 (LC) 6 August 2025 This appeal concerned whether a 2017 assured tenancy clause granting a "tenant option to renew for further 12 months at the same rent" created a perpetually renewable tenancy so that no statutory periodic tenancy arose and the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) lacked jurisdiction to fix market rent. The Upper Tribunal held the clause was ambiguous and did not contain the unequivocal wording needed to create perpetual renewal; it gave only a single one-year renewal, after which a statutory periodic tenancy arose and the FTT properly determined market rent. The appeal was dismissed.
Dahi Hassan & Anor v Nicholas Peter Heath [2025] UKUT 242 (LC) 5 August 2025 The owners of 24 Elm Road applied under s.84(1)(aa) LPA 1925 to modify a 1986 restrictive covenant preventing alteration of the external elevation so they could complete a ground-floor extension and loft conversion for family needs. The Tribunal held that alterations to doors and windows are caught by the covenant, that the covenant does secure a practical benefit to the neighbouring proprietor (owner of 24A), and proceeded with the two-stage jurisdictional and discretionary s.84(1)(aa) analysis; planning permission was relevant but not decisive. An interim injunction has restrained further works; roof works have not started and the extension remains incomplete.
Nofax Station Road Limited v The London Brough of Barnet [2025] UKUT 241 (LC) 28 July 2025 This appeal concerns compensation for compulsory acquisition of a 0.12‑acre landscaped strip of a site, the valuation date being 1 November 2019, and whether an appropriate alternative development (AAD) on the no‑scheme/cancelled‑scheme assumption would have been permitted and how that affects valuation. The Tribunal applies the Curzon Park “broad brush” method to decide AAD on the cancelled‑scheme assumption and must choose between the claimant’s residual AAD case (53 units) and the acquiring authority’s valuation treating the strip as amenity land. The outcome on quantum remained in dispute, with markedly different valuation figures advanced.
London Borough of Waltham Forest v Lisa and Michael John [2025] UKUT 234 (LC) 18 July 2025 This appeal concerned civil penalties for failure to obtain a selective licence for a one‑bed flat; the FTT found both appellants guilty, imposed no penalty on Mrs John, and reduced Mr John's penalty to £4,000. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT unlawfully departed from the council's published penalty banding and granted an unexplained 20% discount for Mr John, substituted a band‑compliant penalty of £5,000 and then applied the council's 20% discount to reach £4,000. The UT dismissed the council's appeal as to Mrs John, leaving her without a financial penalty.
Seng Keong Teoh & Ors v Irene Patsovska [2025] UKUT 237 (LC) 18 July 2025 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) could proceed on a tenant's rent‑determination naming the landlords' managing agent and communicate only with that agent without serving the landlords themselves. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT should have served the landlords (the proper respondents) and that proceeding without giving them notice made the proceedings irregular and, on the available material, unfair. The FTT's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination.
Peter Phits Banfield v Swale Borough Council [2025] UKUT 235 (LC) 17 July 2025 This appeal concerned a landlord, Mr Banfield, who was fined for failing to comply with an improvement notice requiring remedial works to a rented flat. The First‑tier Tribunal found he had not carried out key remedial works, rejected his asserted statutory defences (tenant obstruction, lease restriction, heating/water issues), and imposed a reduced penalty of £3,000; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding the FTT's decision was inevitable on the evidence.
Andrew Kemp & Ors v Dip Systems (UK) Limited [2025] UKUT 233 (LC) 15 July 2025 This appeal concerned whether a landlord is to be treated as having “committed” an unlicensed HMO offence for the purposes of the 12‑month time limit in s.41(2) of the 2016 Act while a statutory reasonable‑excuse defence under the Housing Act 2004 was available. The FTT found the landlord had a reasonable excuse for the period 16 November–15 December 2022, treated the last commission as 15 November 2022, and dismissed the tenants’ out‑of‑time rent‑repayment application; the Upper Tribunal upheld that decision and dismissed the tenants’ appeal. The appeal therefore failed and the application remained out of time.
Triplark Limited v Martin Howard and 55 Ors [2025] UKUT 232 (LC) 15 July 2025 This appeal concerns whether clause 5(11) of near-identical long leases for Northwood Hall permits the landlord to recover £55,492.23 of legal costs as part of the service charge. The First-tier Tribunal held the clause is directed at routine management costs and does not extend to legal costs; the UT recorder agreed the clause's primary focus is management and that the phrase "including" can broaden examples but recorded a genuine textual ambiguity about what "ancillary costs in connection therewith" modifies. The appeal raises whether that ambiguity permits recovery of various categories of legal expenditure; the UT's discussion in the notes does not finally resolve all points.
Amanada Hitchings v Shoosmiths LLP & Anor [2025] UKUT 224 (LC) 9 July 2025 This appeal concerned how to value Category B (tenant) fit-outs for rating purposes at two Grade A offices (Shoosmiths, Manchester; Mando, Liverpool) where direct Category B comparables are scarce. The Upper Tribunal accepted that, absent reliable comparables, the amortised cost to the tenant of the Category B fit-out or a landlord's capital contribution can be significant evidence of the annual value uplift above Category A. The Tribunal rejected the Valuation Tribunal's use of arbitrary fixed uplifts (£10/£15/m2) as a general approach and directed that each property be reassessed applying the accepted principle.
Christopher and Lucy Anthony v Christopher and Patricia Hardy [2025] UKUT 209 (LC) 4 July 2025 This appeal concerns whether a restrictive covenant preventing alterations obstructs the Anthonys' reasonable use of their land by barring construction of a modest rear conservatory and garage opening. The Tribunal applied s.84(1)/(1A) Law of Property Act 1925 and the Bass questions and, on the evidence so far, provisionally found the conservatory (largely screened by a 1.75m fence) would not materially reduce openness, nor significantly affect light or privacy to the Hardys. No final disposition or compensation award is recorded in the supplied notes.
LDC (Ferry Lane 2) GP3 Limited & Ors v Maria Ayoob & Ors [2025] UKUT 205 (LC) 3 July 2025 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was fair or lawful to reach different outcomes in 113 applications despite identical background facts to earlier North Lodge decisions involving the same landlord and properties. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT acted irrationally (or failed to take into account a relevant consideration), set aside the FTT decision and substituted an order that 50% of the rent is repayable in each case. The Upper Tribunal declined to remit for rehearing as disproportionate.
Simon Nelson v Southern Electric Power Distribution [2025] UKUT 213 (LC) 1 July 2025 This appeal concerned compensation under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989 following a necessary wayleave granted to Southern Electric Power Distribution allowing a pole and 11kV line to remain across Mr Nelson's property. The Tribunal rejected a claim for future shutdown costs and awarded a consolidated/hybrid capitalised sum of £47,250 reflecting both diminution in market value and loss of development value. The decision leaves costs to be determined and preserves appeal rights on points of law.
Peter Nigel Joseph Stenner v Teignbridge District Council [2025] UKUT 204 (LC) 26 June 2025 This appeal concerns whether Mr Stenner acquired a prescriptive easement to store up to six boats on a triangular part of Teignbridge District Council's Lower Point Car Park each year from 1 October to 31 May. The FTT found the factual elements for prescription satisfied but held the claimed right could not form the subject‑matter of a grant because, in degree, it would deprive the council of any reasonable use of the Triangle; the appeal challenges that "ouster" conclusion and the FTT's reliance on authorities such as Copeland. The FTT's decision to cancel the registration was appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Kartal Cetin v Epping Forest District Council [2025] UKUT 196 (LC) 23 June 2025 This appeal concerns whether a "let only" agent who received a single advance rent payment can be a "person managing" an unlicensed HMO under the Housing Act 2004. The FTT found Mr Cetin (via his company) committed the offence of managing an unlicensed licensable HMO and imposed a financial penalty (halved by the FTT), and the present tribunal focuses on the legal question of whether receipt of payment in that agency context confers "person managing" status. The judge indicated a purposive, contextual approach to the statutory definition and treated the precise timing of payment, key handover and occupation as not determinative. Permission to appeal on that legal point was granted; liability as found by the FTT stands for present purposes.
Simon French & Anor v Ian Richard Hannah & Anor [2025] UKUT 190 (LC) 23 June 2025 This appeal concerns which half of a semi-detached building owns a small un-metalled triangular widening ("Area A") on a shared drive after a 1959 severance and conveyance that included a plan said to be "for identification only". The FTT accepted the authenticity of a 1959 planning permission and treated it as a surrounding circumstance, concluded the drive should be 20 feet wide at the junction and ordered registration entries accordingly, but its order treated the drive as 20 feet wide up to point E which the parties and tribunal agree was wrong; the FTT decision must be set aside and substituted, with the appeal focussing solely on Area A. No appeal is taken against the FTT's primary factual findings, but the parties dispute what those findings were and how they should be recorded for registration.
Nonyelu Okoye v Gray’s Inn Capital Limited [2025] UKUT 195 (LC) 20 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether insurance service charges levied by the landlord for 2014–2023 included cover beyond the lease-defined "Insured Risks", such that tenants were overcharged. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal, finding summary policy documents showed no cover for business interruption or book debts and that a single £5m owners' liability item did not establish a prima facie case of over-insurance. The appeal was dismissed and the service-charge allowances were upheld.
Sonja Mitterhuber v Christina Lopez Hernandez & Anor [2025] UKUT 194 (LC) 19 June 2025 This appeal concerned rent repayment orders arising from an alleged unlicensed HMO at 321 Haslebury Road and whether a third named occupier lived there as their only or main residence (the HMO "standard test" element (c)). The Upper Tribunal refused fresh evidence, set aside the FTT's finding on that third occupier as lacking evidential basis, and substituted a decision refusing the rent repayment applications. The FTT's 20% repayment order was therefore quashed.
Bank of Scotland PLC (Birmingham Midshires Division) v Burnley Borough Council [2025] UKUT 189 (LC) 17 June 2025 This appeal concerned compensation under s.15 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for a leasehold house compulsorily acquired when the mortgagors did not participate. The Tribunal accepted the parties' agreed market valuation of £45,000 at vesting date and ordered payment of that sum to the mortgagee in part satisfaction of the mortgage, with statutory interest from vesting date and reasonable costs to be agreed between the bank and the acquiring authority.
Glorell Marie Bannister v Joseph Akinremi [2025] UKUT 180 (LC) 12 June 2025 This appeal concerned a rent repayment order (RRO) made by the FTT in respect of an unlicensed six‑bed HMO where the freehold belonged to Mrs Ramdoo and Ms Bannister was a co‑tenant who collected rent and managed the property. The Upper Tribunal allowed Ms Bannister’s appeal, holding there was no jurisdiction to make an RRO against her because she was not the landlord under the tenancy; the FTT’s RRO against Ms Bannister was set aside.
Siama Khurshid v Philomena Sam-Yorke [2025] UKUT 178 (LC) 12 June 2025 This appeal concerns an application to rectify a TR1 transfer that mistakenly conveyed additional land (the Disputed Land) included in title BK402889. The central issue was whether the transfer should be rectified for common mistake—i.e. whether the parties shared a subjective intention to exclude the Disputed Land and gave an outward expression of that accord—and whether any exception to the outward-expression requirement applies to an unnegotiated standard-form TR1. The First-tier Tribunal refused rectification; the Upper Tribunal declined to create an exception to the outward-expression rule for unnegotiated documents, treated conveyancing paperwork (estate-agent particulars, memorandum of sale, solicitor correspondence) as strong evidence of communicated intention, and the appeal succeeded on other grounds.
Christian Wallis v Hutchby & Collumbell Limited [2025] UKUT 179 (LC) 11 June 2025 This appeal concerned a tenant's claim that a 1999 oral agreement had "fixed" his weekly rent at £100, challenging a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision under s.13/14 Housing Act 1988 that set market rent at £156 pw. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT had failed to make necessary factual findings or explain its treatment of the tenant's evidence, set aside the FTT's conclusion that the tenancy term permitted variation, but left the £156 pw market valuation undisturbed. The UT declined to remit the factual question to a differently constituted FTT and indicated remaining questions may require court determination if not agreed.
Carl Pearton v Betterton Duplex Limited [2025] UKUT 175 (LC) 6 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether a rent repayment order (RRO) under section 43(2) of the Housing Act 2004 can cover rent paid in advance before the period in which an unlicensed HMO offence was committed. The Upper Tribunal, bound by Kowalek v Hossanein, held that the statutory wording requires the rent to have been paid "during" the offending period, so a lump-sum advance payment made before that period could not be recovered. The appeal was dismissed.
Priyanj Shah v Assethold Limited [2025] UKUT 174 (LC) 5 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether three insurance service charges levied on a long lessee for 2019/20, 2022/23 and 2023/24 were reasonably incurred under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The First-tier Tribunal had rejected the lessee's challenge, but the Upper Tribunal found the FTT had not properly engaged with relevant evidence and substituted reduced insurance charges of £259.38 (1/8 of £2,705) for each year. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal in respect of those charges and declined to remit the matter to the FTT as substitution was proportionate.
Robert Dyas Holdings Limited v J Moore [2025] UKUT 163 (LC) 5 June 2025 This appeal concerns the rateable value of a purpose-built distribution warehouse in Hemel Hempstead with valuation date 1 April 2017 and antecedent valuation date 1 April 2015. The Tribunal held the correct starting point is rental evidence available to the hypothetical tenant at the AVD, narrowed the usable comparable rents to three transactions (including the subject letting), and framed the contest as between placing primary weight on the subject rent or on a holistic basket/tone of the list. No final single rateable value is reached in the notes provided.
Simon Fletcher & Anor v Portsmouth City Council [2025] UKUT 172 (LC) 5 June 2025 This appeal concerned an Upper Tribunal review of a First-tier Tribunal decision that had varied an improvement notice served by Portsmouth City Council after finding the council’s HHSRS fire-hazard score had been materially overstated. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT’s reasoning was insufficient to justify upholding the council’s intrusive enforcement once the hazard score was found to be much lower, substituted its own decision that the improvement notice was wrongly served, quashed the notice, and set aside the costs order.
David Webber v Rasheeda Syed [2025] UKUT 173 (LC) 4 June 2025 This appeal concerned deductions the First-tier Tribunal made from service charges claimed by landlord Mr Webber for 2014/15–2022/23 and whether the tenant’s payments amounted to agreement. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the “agreement by payment” ground but allowed parts of the appeal on insurance, electricity and 2020/21 maintenance, increasing the sums payable by the tenant by £1,912.16 and ordering a £300 contribution to the landlord’s appeal fees.
Monier Road Limited v Nicholas Alexander Blomfield & Ors [2025] UKUT 157 (LC) 4 June 2025 Monier Road Ltd appealed a First-tier Tribunal remediation order under the Building Safety Act 2022 which had added remediation items beyond those in the leaseholders' application. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT exceeded its discretion and adopted an unfair procedure by raising and effectively arguing new issues (the "Additional Items") without giving parties a proper opportunity to plead or adduce evidence, and set aside those parts of the order. The UT remade the remediation order excluding the Additional Items and removed the requirement to submit the order to the Building Safety Regulator. The FTT’s comments that the building was a higher-risk building were outside its jurisdiction and had no legal effect.
Stevan Gorgievski v Carl Griffiths & Ors [2025] UKUT 161 (LC) 4 June 2025 This appeal concerned FTT rent repayment orders totalling £33,668 against a landlord for an unlicensed HMO. The Upper Tribunal held the tenants' application was in time (the 12‑month period includes the day of application and an electronically sent application is made when sent, on the facts) but set aside the FTT decision because it failed to make factual findings necessary to determine the landlord's statutory reasonable‑excuse defence and gave inadequate treatment to alleged harassment, quantum and fee reimbursement; the matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.
Annja Weinberger & Ors v BHRM Limited [2025] UKUT 160 (LC) 28 May 2025 This appeal concerned whether the lessee of Flat 2 at Brambridge House was liable to contribute to service charges for common parts of the main building and various specific items. The Upper Tribunal held the Flat 2 lease does not obligate the lessee to pay for lighting or other common-part costs inside the main building and set aside the FTT's findings on most challenged charges, while confirming liability only for electrical works limited to repair/renewal of shared cables/wires and upholding the variation of the contribution from one thirteenth to one fourteenth.
Tega Awinoron & Anor v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham [2025] UKUT 139 (LC) 22 May 2025 This appeal concerned an application under s.84 LPA 1925 to modify a restrictive covenant after the applicants altered a shared porch and erected a dividing fence between No 16 (applicants) and council-owned No 18. The Tribunal refused the application, holding it had no jurisdiction to modify under ground (aa) because the covenant continued to secure a practical benefit to the objector and there was no evidence that money would adequately compensate it; the Tribunal's position on ground (a) is internally inconsistent in the judgment text. The county court had already granted an injunction requiring demolition of the works.
Kayalaipilai Suhitharan v Henryk Jan Iwaskiewicz [2025] UKUT 144 (LC) 16 May 2025 This appeal concerned an FTT order rectifying the register to transfer a garage and drive from title no.2 to no.4. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the applicant had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that there were two distinct mistakes (omission from no.4 and inclusion in no.2) and directing reversal of the FTT alteration. The Tribunal also held that, had the FTT finding of mistake stood, paragraph 6(2) Schedule 6 would have protected the drive (possession) but not the garage.
Miroslaw Szymczak v Nafeesa Begum Limited [2025] UKUT 151 (LC) 16 May 2025 This appeal concerns a rent repayment order by Mr Szymczak alleging the property at 55 Roedale Road was an unlicensed HMO on 30 September 2022. The Upper Tribunal refused permission to adduce fresh evidence (tenancy agreements) because the Ladd v Marshall first limb was not met — the documents could with reasonable diligence have been produced at first instance — and found no compelling evidence that a challenged tenancy document was forged. The application to admit new evidence was dismissed and the FTT decision (dismissing the rent repayment application) therefore stands.
Graham Porteous Bishop v Linda Margaret Jaques [2025] UKUT 141 (LC) 9 May 2025 This appeal concerned the correct boundary between The Avenue (Mr Bishop) and Beacon Cottage (Mrs Jaques) and whether a 1971 memorandum between predecessors fixed that boundary. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s finding that the 1971 memorandum recorded a binding boundary demarcation in respect of the strip of land and trees forming Beacon Cottage’s western boundary, and dismissed Mr Bishop’s challenge. The Tribunal also relied on alternative findings (paper-title construction and adverse possession) supporting Mrs Jaques, and ordered cancellation of Mr Bishop’s defined-boundary application if not already done.
Cemex UK Operations Limited v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] UKUT 138 (LC) 2 May 2025 This interim Upper Tribunal decision addresses Cemex's compensation claim for loss of profits after HS2’s compulsory acquisition of its Washwood Heath sleeper factory, focusing on past and future Network Rail (NR) sleeper requirements, stockpile composition, market share and pricing. The Tribunal made factual findings—including an adjusted NR stockpile of about 820,000 sleepers, understated NR requirements for 2017–20 by ~225,000, adopted future requirement profiles through CP9, and found Cemex would have had a 50% market share in the no‑scheme P3 period—and remitted calculation of monetary loss to forensic accountants with a further hearing listed.
Covent Garden IP Limited v Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited [2025] UKUT 136 (LC) 30 April 2025 The Upper Tribunal dismissed Covent Garden IP Ltd's appeal against FTT decisions that imposed interim Code rights for a further multi-skilled visit at Alder Castle with nominal consideration of £1 and refused late permission to rely on expert valuation evidence. The UT held there is no legal bar to adducing expert valuation evidence for disputed interim consideration under paragraph 26(6)(b), but the Building Owner's application to admit such evidence was hopelessly late and would have been refused for case‑management reasons even though the procedural judge had misdirected on the law. The FTT's award of nominal consideration was upheld for lack of persuasive evidence to the contrary, and the appeal against the costs order was refused.
Adrian Peter James Ball & Anor v Ann Fulton [2025] UKUT 135 (LC) 24 April 2025 This appeal concerned a covenant in a 1962 conveyance requiring the Vendor's approval of plans, materials and specification for a dwelling at 23a Park Avenue South. The Tribunal held the wording (approval by "the Vendor" with no reference to successors) showed the covenant was personal to the original Vendor, Mr Warfield, and was therefore obsolete after his death. The Tribunal discharged that approval covenant under s.84(1)(a) LPA 1925 and preserved a right of appeal on a point of law.
The Garden Quarter (Caversfield) Management v Vincent Ortet [2025] UKUT 133 (LC) 23 April 2025 The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's allowance of £1,000 from a £3,392.16 interim service-charge demand for external decoration on the ground that the FTT gave inadequate reasons and did not explain how it arrived at that figure or identify the works it assessed. The case was remitted to the FTT for rehearing and the April 2023 application was stayed pending a final demand said to be due in December 2025; the parties agreed the March 2023 invoice would not be enforced in the meantime. The landlord was directed not to charge the costs of the appeal as a service charge.
John Campbell v Giuseppina Cammarano & Ors [2025] UKUT 122 (LC) 15 April 2025 This appeal concerns the FTT's 2023 rent-repayment orders against Mr Campbell and a 2024 limited review hearing after the FTT accepted he had insufficient time to present his case. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was correct to find Mr Campbell was the landlord but erred in conducting a submissions-only review hearing rather than setting aside the original decision and ordering a full rehearing; the quantum of the rent-repayment orders was set aside and remitted for rehearing before a different panel.
Richard Gennard v Leicester City Council [2025] UKUT 121 (LC) 9 April 2025 This appeal concerned whether a restrictive covenant on nursery land reduced the consideration paid at an August 1999 auction such that compensation was payable under section 84(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Tribunal found that the development policy in force at the 1999 valuation date (MLP 1999, policy OS2) meant purchasers were unlikely to have had a realistic expectation of future development, there was no evidence the restriction depressed the 1999 sale price, and accordingly no compensation was payable under s.84(2). The Tribunal also found grounds (aa) and (c) were made out and ordered modification of the covenant to permit implementation of the 30 November 2022 planning permission (including renewals and matters approved under its conditions).
Sovereign Network Homes v Dr Shoghik Hakobyan & Ors [2025] UKUT 115 (LC) 8 April 2025 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was entitled to raise and adjourn, of its own motion, an unpleaded contractual-liability issue about the lawful demandability of service charges in a s.19 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 claim. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT should not have admitted or pursued that new issue (and that the way it was handled gave rise to unfairness and an appearance of bias), set aside the interim decision and directions, remade the decision to bar the Applicants from pursuing that contractual-liability point in this application, and remitted the pleaded reasonableness challenge back to the FTT.
PC Residents (Finchley Road) Limited v Folasade Jibike Abiola [2025] UKUT 120 (LC) 3 April 2025 This appeal concerned disputed service charges for Flat 25 Palace Court for 2019–2022 and whether the FTT had erred in calculating year-end surpluses and in making a s.20C order. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT had misunderstood or overlooked material evidence, set aside its surplus calculations (which relied on accrual accounts instead of certified payment summaries) and its s.20C order, and held that the lease requires certified adjustments to be paid or credited to individual tenants so surpluses cannot be diverted to a reserve without unanimous leaseholder agreement. The UT dismissed the respondent’s application on remaking the decision and made no order on matters agreed between the parties before the FTT.
Matthew James Kirk & Anor v The Sheffield Bath Company Limited [2025] UKUT 111 (LC) 31 March 2025 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) retained jurisdiction to vary or extend a tribunal-appointed manager's appointment where the application was made before the appointment expired but was not determined until afterwards. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was wrong to strike out the application for want of jurisdiction: an application made while an order remains operative is properly treated under s.24(9)/(9A) and the FTT can consider it even if determination occurs after the fixed term ends. The UT allowed the appeal and remitted the application to the FTT for determination, declining to grant an interim extension itself for lack of current factual evidence.
Paul Richard Kirkman v Bradshaw Pub Company Limited [2025] UKUT 110 (LC) 27 March 2025 This appeal concerned whether Mr Kirkman had established adverse possession of a small, functionally unified parcel comprising a washhouse, an adjoining narrow outside area and "Ashes Places" behind a privy. The First-tier Tribunal found adverse possession of the washhouse only; the Upper Tribunal held that treating the parts separately was flawed and that the evidence of possession and owner-like use of the buildings supported adverse possession of the whole unit. The UT directed registration of the entire Disputed Land.
BNPPDS(J) Limited & Anor v Amanda Hitchings (Valuation Officer) [2025] UKUT 104 (LC) 26 March 2025 This appeal concerned whether a 1977 steel‑framed warehouse undergoing a programme of works was incapable of beneficial occupation on the material day (15 December 2022) and therefore should not be valued on the repair assumption. The Tribunal found the works constituted redevelopment, so the property could not be beneficially occupied as a warehouse on that day and reduced the assessment to rateable value £1 effective 28 November 2022; the Valuation Officer may alter the list for the post‑completion period once evidence is available.
Manaquel Company Limited v London Borough of Lambeth [2025] UKUT 97 (LC) 25 March 2025 Manaquel Company Ltd appealed the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to award costs after it successfully quashed an improvement notice served by London Borough of Lambeth. The Upper Tribunal found legal errors in the FTT’s reasoning—notably giving impermissible weight to events after the notice and failing to consider whether there were reasonable explanations for Lambeth’s conduct—but declined to remake the costs decision for lack of adequate material and remitted evidence. The appeal was dismissed and the FTT’s refusal to order costs was left undisturbed.
56 Westbourne Terrace RTM Company Limited v Jeremy Polturak & Ors [2025] UKUT 88 (LC) 17 March 2025 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal had power under s.35(2)(e) to vary 11 flat leases so an RTM company could recover enforcement legal costs either as an administration charge or via the service charge, and whether the leases "fail to make satisfactory provision" to permit such variation. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred in law about jurisdiction and the test for "satisfactory provision", remade the decision and ordered limited variations: an added service‑charge paragraph permitting recovery of professional fees incurred after 23 October 2023 and a narrowed administration‑charge clause limited to sums becoming payable after 18 March 2025 (not applying to current disputes); no compensation was awarded.
Gary Edward Hanson & Anor v Desmond Theorore Harding & Ors [2025] UKUT 78 (LC) 7 March 2025 This appeal concerns the premium payable for a lease extension where the registered freeholders cannot be found and the FTT had added a £20,000 sum as immediately payable development compensation for loft-conversion potential. The Upper Tribunal held that the £20,000 represented an attribute of the property to be taken into account under Schedule 13 paragraph 3 (and not separate paragraph 5 compensation) and should be deferred to the reversion, set aside the FTT’s approach and determined the premium at £10,884. The decision was allowed with no remittal to the FTT.
Weycroft Weybridge Limited v Ian Wilson & Anor [2025] UKUT 64 (LC) 25 February 2025 This appeal concerned whether a long lease and its 1994 Deed of Variation made satisfactory provision for repair of a flat roof on a ground-floor extension, and whether the FTT had power under s.35(2)(a) LTA 1987 to vary the lease. The Upper Tribunal agreed there was genuine uncertainty in the available title documents about who was responsible for the roof and upheld a variation (with rephrasing) making the roof and its joists part of the Reserved Property and therefore the management company’s repair obligation. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed.
Vodafone Limited v Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited & Anor [2025] UKUT 58 (LC) 20 February 2025 This case concerns three preliminary issues in Vodafone’s references about renewal/termination of a 2003 code agreement for a rural mast site after Icon acquired the freehold. The Tribunal held Vodafone/CTIL did not breach the agreement’s alienation clause, Icon had not proved a firm intention to redevelop under paragraph 31(4)(c), and the paragraph 21 tests for imposition of a new code agreement would be met, so Icon could not rely on paras 31(4)(a), (c) or (d) to terminate. The Tribunal also found prior planning approval for a new lattice tower required removal of the two existing masts but did not require antenna relocation. Proceedings on substantive renewal/termination remain available to the parties.
Notting Hill Genesis v Helal Uddin & Ors [2025] UKUT 56 (LC) 17 February 2025 This appeal concerned whether tenants must pay service-charge items described as a freeholder "Management Fee"/PSCTP and whether "daily building fabric" in printed tenancy schedules covers lift maintenance. The UT affirmed the FTT that printed-schedule tenants are not liable for the freeholder Management Fee, that PSCTP-screen tenants are liable only for services actually costed into the original 2009–10 PSCTP figure, and that lift maintenance is recoverable from printed-schedule tenants under "daily building fabric" (supported by course of dealings). The FTT’s separate finding that NHG failed to substantiate freeholder charges for 2016–2023 remains binding.
Chubb European Group SE v Enfield London Borough Council [2025] UKUT 53 (LC) 14 February 2025 This appeal concerned an insurer's claim under regulation 24 for underpinning costs said to result from Enfield Council's refusal (2 Feb 2018) to consent to felling an oak (T1) protected by a TPO. The tribunal found that, on the balance of probabilities as of the decision date, the claimant failed to prove T1 and its roots had extracted sufficient moisture to cause the subsidence to the garage and extension. Because causation was not established, the tribunal dismissed the claim and did not decide foreseeability, mitigation or quantum.
Emma Owen v Dawn Bunyan (Valuation Officer) [2025] UKUT 42 (LC) 12 February 2025 This appeal concerned the correct rateable value of Musk Hill Farm, Nether Winchendon. The Tribunal determined the rateable value to be £15,600 and appended a detailed valuation schedule supporting that figure. The decision records the statutory right and procedural requirements for seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law.
The Courtyard RTM Co Limited & Ors v Rockwell (FC103) Limited & Anor [2025] UKUT 39 (LC) 7 February 2025 This appeal concerned two consolidated RTM claims under s.72 of the 2002 Act: three blocks at Plaza Boulevard, Liverpool, and No.14 Park Crescent, London. The Tribunal held the Plaza Boulevard blocks were not a "self-contained part of a building" because each included undivided shared basement car-park space, so those RTM claims failed; by contrast No.14 Park Crescent met the vertical-division, independent redevelopment and services tests and the RTM claim succeeded. The Tribunal treated the tests as physical inquiries and allowed a notional vertical dividing line to intersect solid elements (foundations/slabs) without defeating self-containment. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was available as noted.
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Limited v Yeomans & Ors [2025] UKUT 44 (LC) 7 February 2025 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to use CPI rather than RPI to determine pitch-fee increases taking effect before the statutory amendment of paragraph 20 on 2 July 2023. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was wrong to substitute CPI for the RPI prescribed at the review date and that the FTT had exceeded its discretion in attempting to displace the RPI presumption because RPI was high. The UT did not decide the appeal on the merits because the parties subsequently agreed the new fee based on 80% of the RPI increase, leaving no jurisdiction for determination. The UT indicated that, had the agreement not been reached, the appeal would have succeeded on the point of law.
AP Wireless II (UK) Limited v On Tower UK Limited [2025] UKUT 43 (LC) 6 February 2025 This appeal concerned whether an assignee who covenants with the assignor (including by way of indemnity) to perform licence obligations becomes a "party to the Code agreement" for Part V purposes, and whether On Tower gave such covenants in three site agreements. The Tribunal held that an assignee's covenant (even an indemnity) makes the assignee primarily liable between the parties and thus a party to the Code agreement, and found that On Tower had given indemnity covenants in the Sandbach and Blackwell Grange cases, dismissing APW's appeal on the First Issue in those matters; Lubbards Lodge was not reopened because an earlier tenancy/licence finding is final.
Sameer Rana & Anor v Assethold Limited [2025] UKUT 19 (LC) 23 January 2025 This appeal concerned leaseholders challenging three service-charge items and the FTT's refusal to award costs after the landlord repeatedly failed to comply with directions. The Upper Tribunal set aside unexplained findings that the charges were payable, substituted determinations that the three items were not payable, and awarded the leaseholders costs of £4,767.60 plus reimbursement of a £300 FTT fee. The Tribunal also found the landlord’s procedural defaults amounted to unreasonable conduct under rule 13(1)(b).
Southern Country Parks Limited v Eileen Bird & Ors [2025] UKUT 18 (LC) 20 January 2025 Southern County Parks Ltd sought an 11.4% RPI increase to pitch fees; the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found localized/intermittent flooding and drainage problems on certain pitches and either froze or reduced increases for four occupiers. The Upper Tribunal held that a deterioration affecting an individual pitch can displace the statutory RPI/CPI presumption and that intermittent or transitory problems may be relevant, but it set aside the FTT’s determinations for Nos. 4a, 16 and 69 because the FTT failed adequately to explain the valuation exercise underpinning its nil or reduced increases and remitted those matters for reconsideration.
Amanda Hitchings & Anor v Valuation Tribunal for England [2025] UKUT 6 (LC) 14 January 2025 This case arose from two unopposed Valuation Officer appeals against Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE) decisions reducing rateable values for advertising rights on bus shelters in Manchester and Sheffield. The Upper Tribunal allowed the VO appeals, holding that on the available evidence a 6:1 digital:static multiplier for 6-sheet bus shelter displays was warranted and applying that multiplier to set the Manchester RV at £7,200 and the Sheffield RV at £2,950. No costs were ordered.
The Secretary of State for Transport v Quintain City Park Gate Birmingham Limited & Ors [2025] UKUT 7 (LC) 14 January 2025 This appeal determined whether there was a demonstrated planning need for purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) at four Eastside Birmingham sites at their 2018 valuation dates. The Tribunal held that, applying Policy TP33 and having regard to city-wide and localised need, a substantial need for further PBSA existed at each valuation date and so Policy TP33's first criterion would not have barred development. The Tribunal also accepted that licensed HESA data is more reliable than public HESA summaries and may be considered where available.
London Borough of Waltham Forest v Marble Properties (London) Limited [2025] UKUT 2 (LC) 7 January 2025 The Upper Tribunal allowed the London Borough of Waltham Forest’s appeal against the FTT, finding the FTT misread the Council’s penalties policy and wrongly reduced a band‑4 £15,000 penalty (reduced by the Council to £12,000) to £6,000. The UT held the FTT was not entitled to grant an extra 20% discount effectively substituting the Council’s prompt‑payment policy and that the FTT had improperly used its review power to add new reasoning, but refused permission for judicial review as unnecessary. The £12,000 penalty was reinstated.
Beeches Capital v Alison Hunt [2024] UKUT 414 (LC) 20 December 2024 This case concerned an application to discharge or modify a 1959 restrictive covenant preventing non‑agricultural buildings at Beeches Farm so as to allow a 2022 planning permission for a rural business hub. The Tribunal rejected that the covenant was obsolete, found it did secure a limited practical benefit (but not of substantial value), and concluded modification (not discharge) was appropriate if adequate monetary compensation were paid. The restriction was modified to permit the 18 October 2022 permission subject to conditions and payment of £15,000; each party to bear their own costs.
Gunes Ata v Susan Sinclair [2024] UKUT 423 (LC) 20 December 2024 This is an Upper Tribunal appeal against a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision appointing a manager under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 after tenants served a s.22 notice alleging disrepair, infestation and other breaches at St Mary’s House. The appellant challenged the notice’s particularity, the 14‑day remediation period (served over Christmas), and an alleged conflict of interest in the proposed manager. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the FTT’s finding that the notice sufficiently informed the landlord, that the short notice period caused no practical detriment given the landlord’s conduct, and that the conflict‑of‑interest complaint lacked substance; the management order was to be made.
The Chimes (Blackpool) Ltd v The First-Tier Property Chamber [2024] UKUT 431 (LC) 19 December 2024 The appeal concerned whether the landlord could recover First-tier Tribunal (FTT) legal costs under lease clause 3(7) and whether the FTT had enough information to determine an 18‑month service charge for 1 July 2021–31 December 2022. The Upper Tribunal held clause 3(7) did not allow recovery of FTT costs because the lease did not characterise service charges as rent, but allowed the appeal on the 18‑month charge, substituting its own decision that the £1,070 charge was reasonable and payable.
AP Wireless II (UK) Limited v On Tower UK Limited [2024] UKUT 429 (LC) 18 December 2024 This appeal concerned whether an assignee of a pre‑2017 electronic communications licence (On Tower) is "a party to a code agreement" under Part 5 of the Electronic Communications Code when it occupies the site and pays licence fees but has not directly contracted with the site provider. The Tribunal held that an assignee who lawfully occupies the site and has assumed primary responsibility for performing the licence obligations is to be treated as the operator/party for Part 5 purposes; on the facts On Tower may have covenanted with Arqiva by the 2019 block transfer (resolving the First Issue if proved) but failed to prove title at the Ampthill site and so lost on that point.
Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No 1 Limited & Anor v Various Leaseholders of Centre Point House [2024] UKUT 434 (LC) 17 December 2024 This appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) arose from an FTT decision about whether paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 applied to proposed remediation at Centre Point House and whether the façade was an "unsafe cladding system." The Tribunal adjourned the substantive hearing, ruled that a newly framed "relevant defect" argument in the appellants' skeleton was not properly pleaded and can only be pursued if the appellants obtain permission to amend their grounds, and disallowed reliance on post‑FTT government/professional guidance documents. The appellants must apply for permission to amend and agreed to indemnity payment of the respondents' wasted costs; the substantive appeal is relisted pending any amendment application.
Richard O’Halloran v Cornwall Council [2024] UKUT 403 (LC) 12 December 2024 This appeal challenged whether the First-tier Tribunal had sufficient evidence to be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that one occupant (Doris Anyanwu) used 22 Trevail Way as her only or main residence on 7 July 2022, such that the landlord was operating a licensable HMO of five or more. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT's finding on Doris could not be justified on the evidence and set that finding aside, quashing the civil penalty because only four main residents were proved.
Moat Homes Limited v Michelle Carlo [2024] UKUT 415 (LC) 11 December 2024 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) had jurisdiction under sections 13–14 of the Housing Act 1988 to determine rent where an assured periodic tenancy contained a contractual rent-review clause allowing the landlord unilaterally to increase rent by notice. The Upper Tribunal held such contractual clauses fall within the section 13(1)(b) exception and therefore oust the FTT's jurisdiction; the FTT determinations in the three cases were set aside and the landlords' notified rents were restored.
Assethold Limited v Piano Works Building RTM Company Limited [2024] UKUT 399 (LC) 9 December 2024 This appeal concerned an FTT costs order against Assethold after it conceded an RTM claim shortly before the hearing. The Upper Tribunal held Assethold’s limited defence on self‑containment and its delay in conceding (due to late-served, misdirected surveyor evidence and religious observance) were reasonably explained and did not meet the objective test of unreasonable conduct under rule 13(1)(b). The FTT’s costs order was set aside.
Wyldecrest Parks Management Ltd, Re [2024] UKUT 402 (LC) 6 December 2024 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) could require the appellant to serve the FTT's directions on proposed respondents. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT's rules do not permit delegating to a party the task of sending the tribunal's directions and set aside the orders requiring the appellant to do so; the FTT itself must send directions unless there is good reason not to.
Avon Ground Rents Limited & Anor v Mark Pilgrim & Anor [2024] UKUT 400 (LC) 5 December 2024 This appeal concerned whether communal electricity service charges were reasonably incurred at a block with roof solar panels and whether an additional 15% management charge for a s.20 consultation was recoverable. The First-tier Tribunal found the appellants had not discharged the evidential burden and disallowed communal electricity charges for 2019/20–2021/22 (and inferred unreasonableness of later estimated charges), and reduced the consultation charge; the Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT on the electricity charges for the years in issue, set aside any FTT statements purporting to bind future charges, and substituted a 7.5% management charge (half the contracted 15%) plus VAT for the consultation work.
Interface Properties Limited v 307 Barking Road Rtm Company Limited [2024] UKUT 383 (LC) 4 December 2024 This appeal concerned whether two unfloored roof voids under a butterfly roof counted as part of the building's "internal floor area" for the exclusion in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the 2002 Act. The Upper Tribunal confirmed the First-tier Tribunal's outcome that the RTM company could acquire the right to manage, but reached that result on different reasoning. It held that inclusion in "internal floor area" requires the presence (or normal presence) of a floor and the roof voids, lacking floors, were therefore excluded. The appeal was dismissed; the acquisition date was corrected to 24 July 2023 and the FTT order for the appellant to pay the respondent's FTT costs was upheld.
Coven Care Homes Limited v James Hockney & Ors [2024] UKUT 384 (LC) 3 December 2024 Coven Care Homes Ltd sought modification under s.84 Law of Property Act 1925 of restrictive covenants preventing business use of No.2 Redwing Close so it could operate as an OFSTED‑registered two‑child care home. The First‑tier Tribunal found no injury to the beneficiaries from permitting the existing use to continue and therefore made out ground (c), and exercised its discretion to grant a narrowly‑framed modification permitting use as a care home for up to two children within use class C2. The order excluded wider or different business uses and preserved a right of appeal on points of law.
Arkley Estates Limited v Kathleen Madigan & Ors [2024] UKUT 375 (LC) 22 November 2024 This appeal challenged First-tier Tribunal determinations of park pitch-fee reviews under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The UT held the FTT was not obliged to award an index-linked (RPI/CPI) increase where an occupier did not respond and was entitled to apply its own judgment on reasonableness. The UT also held the FTT could take into account evidence from participating occupiers and its site inspection when deciding unopposed applications. The appeal was dismissed.
Assethold Limited v Interface Properties Limited [2024] UKUT 371 (LC) 20 November 2024 This appeal concerned whether a tenant covenant to comply with all "Legal Obligations" should be implied into a 2006 headlease and whether the tenant had breached such an implied covenant by unauthorised conversion and continued use. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was wrong to imply any such covenant into the headlease and rejected the FTT's factual finding that the appellant carried out the conversion works. The Tribunal made a paragraph 5A Schedule 11 (2002 Act) order for costs of the FTT proceedings and the appeal.
Graham William Kitchen v Kent County Council [2024] UKUT 370 (LC) 19 November 2024 This Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision, on written representations, considered whether it has jurisdiction to award costs in a reference under section 204 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, where the claimant sought compensation for diminution in value caused by floodlit sports pitches built under s.203. The Tribunal held that proceedings under s.204 are proceedings for compensation for injurious affection and therefore it has jurisdiction to award costs under rule 10(6)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010. No substantive compensation decision was made in this preliminary ruling.
Carey Group PLC v A Ricketts (Valuation Officer) [2024] UKUT 356 (LC) 15 November 2024 This appeal concerned whether a hereditament made temporarily unoccupiable by basement water ingress should be removed from the rating list or valued at £1, and whether remedial works to seal a defective construction joint amounted to "repair" for rating purposes under paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The tribunal found the remedial resin injection and overbanding carried out in April 2021 were properly to be treated as repairs under the repair assumption and therefore the hereditament must be valued on the basis that the damage had been repaired. The appellant's appeal was dismissed; neither removal from the list nor a nominal £1 assessment was ordered.
Wyldecrest Parks Management Ltd v North Northamptonshire Council [2024] UKUT 360 (LC) 15 November 2024 Wyldecrest appealed the First-tier Tribunal's strike-out of its challenge to conditions on a site licence for Wilby Park. The Upper Tribunal held the 20 April 2023 document issued by North Northamptonshire Council must be construed as a new site licence, so the FTT was wrong to strike out the appellant's appeal; the appeal against the conditions is reinstated.
Nottingham City Council v Housing 35 Plus Limited [2024] UKUT 349 (LC) 14 November 2024 This appeal concerned whether two properties managed by Housing 35 Plus Ltd fell within the Schedule 14(2B) exemption from HMO licensing because the co‑operative's rules secured that all management decisions were taken by members at general meetings. The Upper Tribunal held that rule 30's reference to members "discuss[ing] all management decisions" does not mean they decide them, and that rules 48 and 69 vest control of day‑to‑day management in the management committee; accordingly the rules do not secure member decision‑making for paragraph 2B. The FTT's contrary interpretation was set aside, the properties were treated as HMOs for the purposes of the appeal, and the case was remitted to the FTT to determine the respondent's remaining grounds of appeal.
Tracy Chambers v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] UKUT 361 (LC) 14 November 2024 This appeal concerned recovery of solicitor fees claimed by Tracy Chambers after compulsory purchase of her home, focusing on whether the fees were reasonably incurred as disturbance compensation. The Tribunal found the conveyancing bill disproportionate and much advisory work unnecessary or duplicative of surveyors’ work, awarding a total of £6,240 (including VAT) for the disputed solicitor fees. Directions were given for further submissions on the costs of the reference.
Sean Jevan v Iris Athansiadi & Anor [2024] UKUT 358 (LC) 13 November 2024 This appeal concerned whether a rent repayment application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is only "made" when the required fee is paid. The Tribunal held that proceedings commence when the applicant sends or delivers the notice of application, the fee being a separate requirement; the FTT's finding that the application was lodged within the 12‑month period was upheld and the appeal dismissed. A right of further appeal on a point of law remains subject to permission and time limits.
Karl List v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited [2024] UKUT 351 (LC) 12 November 2024 This appeal considered whether advertising rights at Victoria and Liverpool Street stations were separate hereditaments in the occupation of JC Decaux or part of Network Rail’s single central hereditament. The Tribunal held that the 2010 concession agreement had "let out" the advertising rights to JC Decaux and, because ss.64–65 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 create a specific deeming rule for advertising hereditaments, the usual landlord-control/paramountcy occupation principles need not be applied. The Valuation Officer’s appeals succeeded and the two local list entries were restored.
Fah Hor Chong v Eleonora Severgnini & Ors [2024] UKUT 348 (LC) 8 November 2024 This appeal concerned a rent-repayment-order made by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) against Mr Chong for operating an unlicensed additional-HMO at 12 Arden Crescent. The FTT found he had not submitted an application and rejected his reasonable-excuse defence, but the Upper Tribunal held the FTT had failed to engage with and explain its treatment of Mr Chong’s evidence about online applications and communications with the council, quashed the FTT decision and remitted the matter for redetermination by a different panel.
Kensington Avenue Limited v Nadia Curlin [2024] UKUT 341 (LC) 1 November 2024 This appeal concerned an Upper Tribunal review of a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision fixing a fair rent for a small one‑bed flat at 61 Queen's Gardens. The landlord's market comparables showed substantially higher rents, and the FTT found a market rent of £2,600 but applied deductions to reach £1,352 pcm. The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT decision and remitted the matter for redetermination because the FTT did not give adequate reasons explaining how its market rent finding was consistent with, or why it rejected or discounted, the landlord's comparable evidence.
Avon Freeholds Limited v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKUT 335 (LC) 28 October 2024 This appeal concerned whether an equitable (unregistered) long lessee is a "qualifying tenant" under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and whether failure to serve that lessee with a notice of invitation to participate (NIP) invalidated an RTM claim notice. The Upper Tribunal held that an equitable lessee is a qualifying tenant where there is no legal lessee (but the legal lessee prevails if both exist), and that non‑service of a NIP renders the claim notice voidable only at the instance of the unserved qualifying tenant — a point which was waived here so the RTM claim stood.
Mohammed Bashir v The London Borough of Newham [2024] UKUT 303 (LC) 24 October 2024 The Upper Tribunal considered costs following its substantive decision cancelling Newham’s 'nil' certificate and issuing a CAAD for 8,214 sqm of mixed-use development. Newham sought most of its costs from 16 November 2023 or, alternatively, an issues-based award; the Tribunal rejected those broad claims. It held that Mr Bashir was the overall successful party and made a limited issues-based award requiring him to pay 20% of the costs of Dr Miele’s heritage evidence, as those costs were demonstrably and isolably wasted by late non‑communication of a change in Mr Bashir’s case.
Bank of Scotland PLC v Burnley County Council [2024] UKUT 328 (LC) 22 October 2024 This case is a s.15 Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 reference about compensation where the mortgagor did not participate. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to determine compensation and assessed the market value of 11 Kay Street at £35,000 as at 2 May 2023, taking account of condition and structural defects. The sum is payable to Bank of Scotland PLC in part satisfaction of the mortgage debt, with statutory interest from vesting to be agreed between the bank and the acquiring authority.
Kimberley Ruth Sing Tze Moh & Ors v Rimal Properties Limited [2024] UKUT 324 (LC) 18 October 2024 This appeal concerned how to compute the "period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made" in s.41(2)(b) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and when a s.72 Housing Act 2004 defence takes effect on the day an application/notification (or reasonable endeavours) is made. The Tribunal held the 12‑month period is made of whole days and starts at the first moment of the day after the corresponding date a year earlier, and that a s.72 defence, where engaged, applies to the whole day on which the qualifying act occurs. Applying those conclusions the tenants’ applications were out of time and both appeals were dismissed.
Joanne Moore (Valuation Officer) v Caroline Bailey [2024] UKUT 304 (LC) 7 October 2024 This appeal concerned whether equestrian facilities at Holdenby North Lodge (two contiguous yards plus the remainder of a farm) formed one hereditament or separate hereditaments for rating purposes. The Tribunal found the farm partnership was in joint occupation of the whole farm, that Mr Bailey was not in paramount occupation of the point-to-point yard, and that the yards were of the same mode/category, so the property is a single, part-exempt, composite hereditament; the appeal was allowed and the rating list is to be amended to RV £18,000.
Daisy Ojukwu v Chukwunyere Peter Onuoha [2024] UKUT 313 (LC) 4 October 2024 This appeal concerns a rent repayment order made against Mrs Ojukwu after the First-tier Tribunal found she managed an unlicensed HMO. The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT decision and remitted the case for re-determination by a different panel, because the FTT failed to make essential factual findings (notably when a tenant left), relied on council website material without inviting parties to deal with it, and did not adequately explain why the appellant lacked a reasonable excuse or properly consider mitigation and financial matters.
Margaret Jones v Welsh Government [2024] UKUT 316 (LC) 4 October 2024 This appeal concerned compensation under a compulsory purchase order for a small taking from Barnfield, a house with stables, where the main disputes were (1) the no-scheme value at 6 November 2017 and resulting injurious affection and (2) disturbance claims for livery costs and Japanese knotweed treatment. The Tribunal accepted the respondent’s scheme-world valuation as a useful benchmark but applied a round-sum £20,000 discount for uncertainty to determine injurious affection at £20,000. Disturbance was awarded: livery £1,580 and Japanese knotweed treatment £7,200, producing a total compensation award before interest and fees of £30,477.70.
Zdravka Ivanova Atesheva v Halifax Management Ltd [2024] UKUT 314 (LC) 4 October 2024 This appeal concerned whether an assured shorthold tenant’s 31 December 2023 emails to the First‑tier Tribunal were a timely and effective referral of a landlord’s section 13(4) prescribed rent‑increase notice. The FTT had struck out the reference for lack of jurisdiction as the emails did not match the prescribed Form No.6; the Upper Tribunal held that, while the email lacked some Form No.6 detail, it nonetheless achieved the statutory purpose of referring the notice and so vested the FTT with jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the FTT to determine the open market rent from 1 February 2024.
Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKUT 301 (LC) 25 September 2024 This appeal concerned the market value of 12 Chester Square for ATED purposes at 1 April 2017. The Tribunal preferred seven comparables, adopted gross internal area (including the integral garage), used the Savills Central London House Index interpolated to 215.4 for April 2017, and assessed market value at £11,750,000, rejecting the appellant’s lower figure and certain post‑2017 comparables.
Siraj Deane v London Borough of Newham [2024] UKUT 300 (LC) 25 September 2024 This appeal concerned Mr Deane's challenge to the First-tier Tribunal's refusal to reinstate his appeal against a £7,500 financial penalty for allegedly managing an unlicensed HMO. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT had misdirected itself by over-relying on CPR authorities and failing to apply the FTT Rules and overriding objective, and by not considering whether the Council's evidential case was so weak that the merits favoured relief. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the FTT decision and ordered reinstatement of the appeal subject to limits on evidence, while giving the Council 21 days to say whether the UT should decide the penalty or remit for rehearing.
Julie Stanton & Ors v Fury Developments Limited [2024] UKUT 294 (LC) 23 September 2024 Occupiers of a protected mobile home site appealed FTT decisions that allowed the site owner to recover administration charges for gas and electricity collected via agent POW Utilities. The Upper Tribunal held that clauses requiring occupiers to pay "charges in respect of" utilities, and the statutory implied term, permit reimbursement only of the actual supplier charges, not the site owner’s or its agent’s administration costs. POW was not a utility supplier and its administration fees could not be recovered from occupiers; the FTT decisions were set aside and appellants must be reimbursed any such payments. All four appeals succeeded.
Michael Osagie v Kingsley Onwuka & Anor [2024] UKUT 293 (LC) 18 September 2024 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) validly proceeded with a rent-repayment hearing in the appellant landlord's absence under rule 34. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT had evidence notice was received but failed to show it had considered (or adequately explained consideration of) whether proceeding was in the interests of justice, rendering the exercise of discretion invalid; nonetheless the appeal was dismissed because the substantive order (repayment) would inevitably have been made on the admitted and found facts, so the order was upheld and held funds were to be released to the respondents.
Teignbridge District Council v Francis Clark [2024] UKUT 279 (LC) 12 September 2024 Teignbridge District Council appealed an FTT decision reducing a proposed pitch-fee increase for Mr Clark, arguing errors in the FTT’s reasoning about site deterioration, timing, and reliance on an exceptional RPI rise. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the challenges on causation and timing, but allowed the appeal in part, holding the FTT erred by treating the exceptional magnitude of the RPI increase as a relevant factor and remitting the matter to the same FTT panel to redo the decision without regard to the RPI level.
Bryan Rylands v Ian Hopkins & Anor [2024] UKUT 276 (LC) 11 September 2024 This appeal concerned the FTT's determination of the market rent for Flat D Avenay Court under the Housing Act 1988 after a tenant challenged a rent increase and submitted evidence alleging dangerous electrical work. The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT's decision because it failed to address or explain its treatment of the tenant's evidence about the electrical installations, and remitted the case for the FTT to make factual findings about the electrical works and reassess market rent. The parties were unrepresented and the appeal was decided on written representations.
Zaid Alothman Holdings Limited & Ors v Better Intelligent Management Limited & Anor [2024] UKUT 253 (LC) 10 September 2024 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction over student cluster rooms and studios at Phoenix Place and whether the respondents acted unreasonably in bringing proceedings against cluster‑unit leaseholders. The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT's unexplained refusal to award costs, found the respondents had acted unreasonably in issuing proceedings in a form that subjected cluster‑unit leaseholders to needless jurisdictional argument, and ordered the respondents to pay 90% of the cluster‑unit appellants’ costs (summarily assessed as £19,327). The UT declined to make an order for studio‑related jurisdiction costs.
AP Wireless II (UK) Limited v On Tower UK Limited [2024] UKUT 263 (LC) 9 September 2024 This appeal concerned whether two telecoms site agreements (1997 Sandbach and 2002 Lubbards) were leases or licences. The Upper Tribunal held the 2002 Agreement was a lease (subject to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954) but the 1997 Agreement was a licence because its post‑minimum‑term notice provision meant there was no term certain. The FTT was set aside as to the 2002 Agreement and its decision upheld as to the 1997 Agreement.
Kevin Prosser KC v Andrew Ricketts [2024] UKUT 264 (LC) 4 September 2024 This appeal concerned whether seven barristers' rooms at Jockey's Fields ought to be assessed as separate hereditaments or as a single hereditament for rating purposes. The Tribunal found the rooms were held on trust for all members under the Chambers' constitution and leases, giving members a joint equitable interest and joint occupation of the whole premises. It held individual members were not in sole or paramount occupation of separate rooms and dismissed the appeal, confirming the premises remain a single hereditament. The Tribunal said it would in any event have found the Chambers in paramount occupation.
Amlendu Kumar v Nikola Kolev & Ors [2024] UKUT 255 (LC) 29 August 2024 This appeal concerned a First-tier Tribunal rent repayment order requiring the freehold owner, Mr Kumar, to repay rent to occupiers of an unlicensed HMO. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the FTT had no jurisdiction to make RROs against Mr Kumar because the occupiers paid rent to an intermediate tenant/manager (LML), not to him; the UT also found the FTT had erred in failing to address the defence of reasonable excuse and had miscalculated the award. The FTT’s order was set aside and discharged.
Martin Hampton v The Berkeley Leisure Group Limited [2024] UKUT 260 (LC) 29 August 2024 This appeal challenged an FTT decision that a pitch fee review notice and prescribed form were valid despite a minor address error and an erroneous arithmetic step in the form's calculation. The Upper Tribunal held the address omission did not invalidate the documents because a reasonable recipient would understand their effect, and that an incorrect calculation does not automatically defeat a prescribed form where the required information and method are set out; the FTT could correct the arithmetic. The appeal was dismissed and the FTT's RPI-based increase, as corrected by the Tribunal, was upheld.
Amber Valley Borough Council v Haytop Country Park Limited [2024] UKUT 237 (LC) 22 August 2024 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal lawfully substituted site licence conditions for Haytop Country Park that effectively permitted 18 pitches contrary to an extant enforcement notice and prior planning decisions. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred in law and irrationally undermined the enforcement notice, set aside the FTT decision, and allowed the Council's appeal, directing confirmation of the Council's licence conditions subject to agreed minor variations and addition of specific pitches.
Charles Waters v Wayne Cox (Valuation Officer) [2024] UKUT 232 (LC) 22 August 2024 This appeal concerned the 2017 rating valuation of Finkley Down Farm, a two‑site farm attraction, and disputed elements of a receipts & expenditure valuation including fair maintainable trade (FMT), manager's salary, equipment hire/depreciation, the effect of Taylor Wimpey’s reserved rights, and the tenant’s share. The Tribunal adopted a FMT of £1,325,000, disallowed a manager/director salary as a working expense, included equipment hire in working expenses using actual account depreciation, treated the Taylor Wimpey rights as an essential characteristic but too remote to affect valuation, fixed the tenant’s share at 68% and dismissed the appellant’s challenge, leaving the rateable value at £100,000.
Ian Arthur Hurley & Anor v Turner’s Regency Parks Ltd [2024] UKUT 231 (LC) 7 August 2024 This appeal concerned service of a pitch-fee review application where the FTT sent papers by email only to Mr Hurley and did not serve his co-occupier Ms Hope. The Upper Tribunal found Ms Hope was not served and that both respondents in practice were deprived of a fair opportunity to participate; Mr Hurley’s effective receipt was also in doubt. The FTT’s decision fixing the pitch fee was set aside and the application remitted for redetermination.
Bryan G Curd v Liverpool City Council [2024] UKUT 218 (LC) 30 July 2024 This appeal concerned an improvement notice under the Housing Act 2004 requiring remedial work to seven fire doors in an HMO. The First-tier Tribunal varied the notice to require an independent fire risk assessor's report because it was not satisfied a hazard existed; the Upper Tribunal held that variation was unlawful and set the FTT decision aside. The improvement notice remains unconfirmed and inoperative; the Council may re-inspect, revoke, or consider serving a new notice.
Adam Thomas Nicholson & Anor v Ian Reginald Hale & Anor [2024] UKUT 210 (LC) 29 July 2024 This appeal concerned costs after the Upper Tribunal allowed the appellants' appeal on ground 1, remade the First-tier Tribunal's decision that the respondents' claimed right of way failed, and set aside the FTT costs order. The UT ordered the respondents to pay the appellants' UT costs in full and 75% of the appellants' FTT costs, allowed specified counsel and other disbursements, limited recoverable litigant-in-person time to the CPR Practice Direction rate (£19/hr) for 100 hours, and made no order as to the costs of the Costs Hearing.
EE Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited [2024] UKUT 216 (LC) 29 July 2024 This appeal concerned two remaining terms of a renewed Code lease at Vache Farm: whether the landlord could have an early redevelopment break and the correct annual consideration under paragraph 24 applying the no‑network assumption. The Tribunal held the landlord may terminate on giving not less than 18 months' notice expiring on the fifth or any subsequent anniversary if it intends to redevelop and cannot reasonably do so while the lease continues, rejected broader grounds tied to paragraph 21, and fixed the annual consideration at £1,750. An obscure additional indemnity in the superior lease was omitted as unnecessary.
Mohammed Sagier v Harbans Kaur [2024] UKUT 217 (LC) 29 July 2024 This appeal concerned whether Mr Sagier acquired a private prescriptive right of way on foot over part of Mrs Kaur's driveway on a private road. The Upper Tribunal held the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by not properly considering the statutory Prescription Act 1832 claim and by treating signage and a single oral protest as defeating acquisition; the UT allowed the appeal and directed registration of the right of way (subject to reinstating or gating the gap if currently fenced closed).
Martin Marcus v Dino Kwok [2024] UKUT 219 (LC) 25 July 2024 This appeal concerned a First-tier Tribunal rent repayment order requiring the landlord to repay £3,025 to one joint tenant, Mr Kwok, for letting an unlicensed selective-licence property. The Upper Tribunal considered whether a single joint tenant could recover rent paid by a co-tenant who had not joined the application and concluded the FTT had not wrongly included rent paid by the absent co-tenant. The appeal was dismissed and the FTT order upheld.
Aaron Shorr & Anor v London Borough of Camden [2024] UKUT 202 (LC) 17 July 2024 This appeal reviewed First-tier Tribunal determinations upholding civil penalties against two joint owners for HMO licensing and management breaches. The Tribunal upheld penalties against Ms Ro but found the FTT had erred in its approach to Mr Shorr and in applying totality and double-counting principles, setting aside all penalties against Mr Shorr and substituting a reduced aggregate penalty of £8,000 for Ms Ro. The decision preserves the right to seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Michael Lackey v John Pearce & Anor [2024] UKUT 189 (LC) 17 July 2024 This appeal concerns an application under section 84(1) Law of Property Act 1925 by Mr Lackey to modify a 1973 restrictive covenant preventing erection of additional buildings in the rear garden of 14 Penina Avenue. The Tribunal found the covenant's object included preserving low density and spacious amenity within the defined Mellanvrane Lane Estate, that the estate's character largely persists despite denser development outside it, and concluded the restriction was not obsolete so there was no jurisdiction to modify under ground (a). The application was refused; a point of law appeal to the Court of Appeal is preserved subject to permission and time limits.
Thanet Lodge (Mapesbury Road) & Anor v Arun Mirchandani [2024] UKUT 205 (LC) 16 July 2024 This appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerned whether an RTM company could recover certain legal and mediation costs from a leaseholder as service charges under clause 5(4)(g) and the Fifth Schedule definition of "Total Expenditure" in the lease. The Tribunal held that costs for advice about the RTM company's constitution and legal/mediation costs incurred in dispute resolution with leaseholders were not recoverable as service charges. The appeal was dismissed and the FTT decision upheld.
Shynar Zhylzhaxynova v Jo Moore (Valuation Officer) [2024] UKUT 204 (LC) 15 July 2024 This appeal concerned whether Unit 1 Slater Court comprised one hereditament or two (office and warehouse) and, if two, who was in rateable occupation. The Upper Tribunal found the parts were not self-contained and formed a single hereditament, and that QPL (the lessee) retained paramount occupation of the whole unit; the appeal was dismissed.
The London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Lessees of Brewster House and Malting House [2024] UKUT 193 (LC) 11 July 2024 This appeal concerned whether the landlord, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, could recover the c. £8.067m cost of remedial works to Large Panel System (LPS) structural defects from long leaseholders by way of service charge under the leases of two blocks on the Barleymow Estate. The First-tier Tribunal had held the lease terms (notably clause 5(5)(a), clause 5(5)(o) and the Fifth Schedule definition of "Total Expenditure") did not permit charging leaseholders for works to remedy inherent structural defects absent prior physical deterioration; the Upper Tribunal agreed and dismissed the appeal. The appellant also agreed it would not recover its litigation costs from leaseholders by way of service charge.
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Limited v D Finch & Ors [2024] UKUT 197 (LC) 10 July 2024 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) could reduce pitch fees at Berrnarbor Park below the last agreed level, whether it could compare current condition to the park's earlier "pristine" state when deciding deterioration under paragraph 18(1)(aa), and whether later improvements could justify restoring fees. The Upper Tribunal rejected Wyldecrest's legal challenges, holding the FTT had power under paragraph 16 to set a lower reasonable fee and was entitled to use the site's prior actual condition as the comparator for deterioration. Wyldecrest's valuation challenges were not admitted for failure to obtain required permission.
Clarion Housing Association Limited v VC Chitty & Ors [2024] UKUT 187 (LC) 28 June 2024 Clarion sought to modify or discharge covenants from a 1975 conveyance that restricted use to an "old persons' warden scheme" and required the vendor's consent for works, to allow a 38‑unit general residential scheme. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction, discharged the vendor‑consent clause as obsolete, and modified the restrictive covenant under s.84(1)(aa) so the land may be used for "residential and ancillary purposes", finding the covenant impeded reasonable use and conferred no substantial practical benefit. No compensation was awarded.
Liam Philip Spender & Ors v Fit Nominee Limited & Anor [2024] UKUT 175 (LC) 26 June 2024 This appeal concerned challenges to service charge recoveries at St David’s Square for 2018–2020: leaseholders contested broker commission retained by FPIS (a connected insurer) on non-buildings insurances, and the landlord challenged the FTT’s finding that long-term rental/maintenance charges to Countryside for estate security systems were not reasonably incurred. The Upper Tribunal held the landlord had not shown FPIS’s commissions were reasonably incurred, excluded the listed commission amounts from recoverable service charges, and found (subject to the landlord’s conceded 25% reduction for 2020) that the Countryside charges were reasonably incurred and payable. The FTT was faulted for proceeding without live oral evidence from the landlord’s insurance witness, which shifted the evidential burden onto the landlord.
Elizabeth Alexander & Anor v Mark Middleton [2024] UKUT 182 (LC) 21 June 2024 This appeal concerned a market-rent determination by the First-tier Tribunal for 2 Boulton Road and whether the FTT lawfully took into account alleged refusals of access for remedial works when fixing market rent as at 31 March 2023. The Upper Tribunal concluded the FTT either relied on events after the valuation date (which would be an error of law) or failed to make necessary findings about the timing of access requests and refusals, quashed the decision and remitted the case for re-determination.
John Anthony Newell v Joe Abbott & Anor [2024] UKUT 181 (LC) 19 June 2024 This appeal concerned rent repayment orders (RROs) after the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found Mr Newell had managed a selectively‑licensed flat without a licence and rejected his reasonable‑excuse defence. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was entitled to reject the defence but erred in law in its approach to assessing the seriousness of the offence and calculating quantum. The FTT decision on quantum was set aside and replaced with reduced RROs of 60% of one year's rent (£4,320 each) payable within 21 days.
The Beaches Management Ltd v D & J Furbear & Ors [2024] UKUT 180 (LC) 19 June 2024 This Upper Tribunal allowed in part an appeal against FTT findings that a combined pitch-fee review notice and prescribed form was invalid and that a proposed RPI-linked increase was unreasonable. The UT held that a single document can validly serve both roles if it contains the required material and that absence of evidence of authorisation does not permit an inference that a signatory lacked authority. The UT set aside the FTT's invalidity and unreasonableness findings but remitted the applications to the FTT for rehearing because material factual and jurisdictional questions (including conflicting FTT findings on site ownership and entitlement to service charges) remain unresolved.
Adam Thomas Nicholson & Anor v Ian Reginald Hale & Anor [2024] UKUT 153 (LC) 14 June 2024 This appeal and cross-appeal concerned whether a small sign on the front garden of 4 Derby Terrace prevented owners of No 6 acquiring a prescriptive pedestrian right of way over an external staircase and forecourt ("Blue Land"). The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's finding that the sign was legible but allowed the Appellants' primary ground: read objectively in context the wording conveyed that the land was private and rendered the users' use contentious, so prescription failed. The FTT decision and order were set aside and re-made to cancel the application; the cross-appeal was dismissed.
Staffordshire County Council v Residents of the Roe Lane Farm Housing Estate [2024] UKUT 174 (LC) 14 June 2024 This case concerns Staffordshire County Council's s.84 application to discharge or modify 1958 restrictive covenants preventing non‑educational development of a former school site. The Tribunal found the site surplus to educational requirements, accepted the council's unchallenged evidence, and held that grounds (a), (aa) and (c) were made out, exercising its discretion to discharge clauses 2(1) and 2(2). The decision leaves only costs outstanding and preserves rights of appeal on points of law.
Nigel James Rutherford Briant v Hugo John Baldacchino [2024] UKUT 164 (LC) 6 June 2024 This appeal concerned an application under s.84 to modify a restrictive covenant preventing further building on 47 Brook Lane so as to permit proposed developments on two plots (A and B). The tribunal found the proposed houses were materially larger/closer (with basement and overbearing concerns) and that severance and uncertain successive proposals would substantially disadvantage the neighbouring owner, Kestor. It therefore held the covenant continued to secure practical benefits of substantial value and refused modification for both plots. The decision also admonished that modification applications should be clearly defined and normally supported by planning permission.
Ambercrown Limited v Alexandra Perrett & Anor [2024] UKUT 158 (LC) 5 June 2024 This appeal concerned whether consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 had been complied with for roof works at Nutley Court and whether the FTT correctly limited recoverable costs to £250 per tenant. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT had failed to address the landlord’s evidence that an earlier consultation had taken place and, on the facts as agreed or admitted by the respondents, concluded the FTT lacked jurisdiction because the charges had been agreed or admitted. The FTT’s decision was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Mohammed Bashir v The London Borough of Newham [2024] UKUT 146 (LC) 5 June 2024 This appeal concerned Mr Bashir's challenge to the London Borough of Newham's "nil" CAAD certificate for land at 117 and 119–121 High Street, Stratford and what notional redevelopment a reasonable planning authority could have permitted at the valuation date. The Tribunal held the appellant's predominantly residential notional schemes conflicted with the development plan (notably employment-cluster and site-allocation policies) and would cause unacceptable heritage and townscape harm, and substituted its own appropriate-alternative development: a mostly commercial three-block scheme with specified heights, 8,214 sqm GIA non-residential floorspace, conditions and planning contributions. The appeal was allowed and Newham's certificate cancelled and replaced accordingly.
Gravesham Borough Council v On Tower UK Limited [2024] UKUT 151 (LC) 4 June 2024 This appeal arose after the First-tier Tribunal refused to strike out On Tower’s Part 4 (Code) reference made after its renewal claim under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 failed procedurally. The Upper Tribunal held that an operator who has exhausted or failed in renewal proceedings under the 1954 Act may not thereafter pursue an imposed agreement under Part 4 of the Electronic Communications Code, and alternatively that On Tower’s paragraph 20/27 notice was invalid while its tenancy was continued by the 1954 Act. The Council’s appeal was allowed and the Part 4 reference was struck out.
Jenny Yi v Nick Hobbs & Anor [2024] UKUT 155 (LC) 3 June 2024 This appeal concerned two rent repayment orders (RROs) made by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) against Ms Yi for managing an unlicensed five‑bed HMO. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT had inexplicably given only 50% credit for rent arrears in Mr Hobbs’ case and had made arithmetic errors in Mr Alaike’s award, set aside those parts of the FTT decision and substituted corrected awards (£1,608.92 for Mr Hobbs; £3,420.06 for Mr Alaike), with immediate payment and fee directions preserved. Ms Yi may apply within 14 days for repayment of appeal fees from the respondents under the relevant rule.
Fridays Limted v Dawn Bunyan (Valuation Officer) [2024] UKUT 149 (LC) 31 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether three egg-processing buildings at Chequer Tree Farm qualified as agricultural buildings exempt from business rates under paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The Tribunal held that, applying the 2003 amendment to paragraph 3, the buildings were occupied together with Fridays' farms and were used solely in connection with agricultural operations, so they qualified for the agricultural exemption; the agreed liability reduces the hereditament assessment to RV £136,000.
Newcastle City Council v Mahmoud Abdallah [2024] UKUT 140 (LC) 21 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether a council demand for information required by a selective licence, sent by ordinary post to an address the licence-holder no longer occupied, was validly served under s.233(2) Local Government Act 1972 and related provisions. The Upper Tribunal held that s.233(2) can apply to demands under licence conditions and that the "last known address" is assessed by reference to the knowledge of the specific licensing team; because the licensing team reasonably relied on the address it held (Primrose Lane), service was properly effected and the First-tier Tribunal was wrong to find otherwise. The appeal was allowed on the service point and the case was remitted to the FTT for consideration of any reasonable-excuse defence and penalty quantum if the Council seeks remission.
Struan Gordon Robertson v James and Alexandra Pace [2024] UKUT 123 (LC) 20 May 2024 This appeal concerned an application by Mr Robertson to discharge an agricultural-only restrictive covenant on 215 acres under s.84(1) LPA 1925, benefiting a circa 9-acre woodland and other retained land owned by the Paces. The Tribunal found the covenant was likely imposed to protect planned odorous or otherwise incompatible development on retained land (e.g. sewage works/tannery), that the neighbourhood had not changed so as to render the covenant obsolete, and that discharge would probably injure the beneficiaries by constraining retained land options. The application was refused and the covenant was not discharged.
Markus Lehner v Lant Street Management Company Limited [2024] UKUT 135 (LC) 17 May 2024 This appeal concerned a 2021 service‑charge demand for replacement insulation and installation of cavity/fire barriers at Flat 44, and whether the demand was payable and/or the works fell within Schedule 8 protections of the Building Safety Act 2022. The Tribunal found the demand defective because it misidentified the landlord and therefore not payable, and also that the lease is a qualifying lease and the works constituted "cladding remediation" under paragraph 8 so Schedule 8 protection applied. The FTT decision was set aside and replaced: no service charge is payable by Mr Lehner for the works.
Assethold Limited v 429 New Cross Road RTM Company Limited [2024] UKUT 113 (LC) 16 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether a landlord's counternotice nominating an address for "future communications relating to the subject matter of the notice" operated as a notified address for service of a withdrawal under s.111(4) of the 2002 Act, and whether a purported withdrawal and second claim were therefore effective. The Upper Tribunal held the counternotice did nominate the address for service, the withdrawal was not served at that address and so was ineffective, and the second claim was premature and ineffective. The FTT's decision that the RTM company was entitled to acquire the right to manage was set aside.
Graham Bradley & Anor v Abacus Land 4 Limited [2024] UKUT 120 (LC) 15 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether residential leaseholders must pay service‑charge costs for a gym that was separately let. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT that the leaseholders cannot challenge charges for 2013–2020 because their conduct supported an inference of agreement, but set aside the FTT’s decision for 2021–2023, holding it was unreasonable to allocate 100% of post‑2020 gym costs to residents. The landlord must reassess apportionment for 2021–2023 and refund improperly charged litigation costs.
Khalid Qayyum Rana & Anor v Maitland Court Limited [2024] UKUT 122 (LC) 14 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) properly exercised its paragraph 5A Schedule 11 (2002 Act) discretion when dealing with recoverability of a landlord's litigation costs as administration charges. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT had failed to take into account relevant concessions and prior payments and substituted an order extinguishing the appellants' liability for those litigation administration charges. The FTT's earlier finding that up to half the charges were recoverable was set aside.
Colin Bernard Medley v Ross Mackenzie & Ors [2024] UKUT 112 (LC) 8 May 2024 This appeal concerned Mr Medley’s s.84 application to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting 12 High Elms so he could replace a bungalow with two houses. The Tribunal discharged the 1967 covenant requiring consent from High Elms Properties Ltd because that company was dissolved, but refused to modify or discharge the remaining 1966 and 1967 covenants, finding they continue to secure practical benefits of substantial advantage (protecting open aspect/limiting over‑development and preserving a listed wall). The application was therefore granted in part only.
Guv Harborough & Saltley House RTM Co Ltd v Adriatic Land 3 Limited & Ors [2024] UKUT 109 (LC) 2 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether three residential blocks (Harborough, Saltley and Brecon Houses) above a shared underground car park formed a "self-contained building" for the purposes of the Right to Manage (s72 2002 Act) and whether the existence of a separate Brecon House RTM company prevented the appellant becoming an RTM company. The Upper Tribunal held the First-tier Tribunal's decision was inadequately reasoned and supported by insufficient evidence on structural detachment and on the effect of the separate RTM company; the appeal was allowed, the FTT decision set aside, but the appellant's claim was dismissed as unproven because the material before the FTT was inadequate. The UT did not remake the decision and recommended the tenants consider serving further notices with proper evidence.
Naila Tabassam v Manchester City Council [2024] UKUT 93 (LC) 10 April 2024 This appeal concerned a £15,000 financial penalty imposed on Mrs Tabassam for failing to comply with an Improvement Notice relating to a privately rented property. The Upper Tribunal held that service of the Improvement Notice was valid when sent to the address for service recorded at HM Land Registry, but on the evidence the First-tier Tribunal was wrong to reject Mrs Tabassam's reasonable-excuse defence; the UT substituted a finding that she did have a reasonable excuse, so no offence was committed and no penalty payable.
G & A Gorrara Ltd & Ors v Kenilworth Court Block E RTM Co Ltd [2024] UKUT 81 (LC) 8 April 2024 This appeal concerned whether lessees' past unqualified on-account payments and related conduct deprived the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) of jurisdiction under s.27A(4) of the 1985 Act by amounting to "agreement or admission" of final service charges, and whether the appellants were estopped by convention from challenging estate-wide, block-apportioned final charges. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was wrong to treat payments alone as dispositive of agreement/admission as to final charges and set aside the FTT's estoppel-by-convention finding insofar as it purported to bar challenge to final Block E charges for 2012/13–2015/16. The UT directed that the FTT must determine the final service charges, apportionment and set-off for 2012/13–2019/20.
John HW Anderson v Igors Kokins & Anor [2024] UKUT 91 (LC) 5 April 2024 This appeal concerns a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision on a section 14 rent increase for a two-bedroom flat at 62 Swan Walk, Shepperton. The Upper Tribunal found it procedurally unfair for the FTT to rely on detailed, uncontradicted tenant allegations where the directions precluded the landlord from responding, upheld a market rent of £1,600 pcm in letting condition, reduced the FTT’s excessive deductions to £50 pcm, and fixed the payable rent at £1,550 pcm from 9 April 2023; an application to postpone the increase for undue hardship was refused.
Thirty One Crescent Grove Limited v Sven Atherden [2024] UKUT 80 (LC) 2 April 2024 This appeal concerned two disputed service charge items for 31 Crescent Grove: a £3,880 stairwell redecoration and £600 of roof repairs the tenant commissioned and paid. The Upper Tribunal held the tenant had, by contemporaneous emails, agreed to the stairwell works so could not rely on a s.20 consultation objection, and therefore must pay his apportioned share of the redecoration. The Tribunal also held there was no company decision authorising the £600 roof works so that expenditure was not "incurred by or on behalf of the landlord" and is not recoverable as a service charge.
Octagon Overseas Limited & Anor v Sandra Cantlay & Ors [2024] UKUT 72 (LC) 26 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether leaseholders must pay portions of insurance commissions and fees (paid to manager WMS and broker Reich) as part of Insurance Rent under the Headlease and Underleases for Canary Riverside Estate. The First-tier Tribunal had excluded the WMS sums but allowed Reich’s commissions; the Upper Tribunal allowed the landlords’ appeal on interpretation, holding the gross premium (including commissions) can fall within the definition of Insurance Rent, but on the available evidence substituted a determination that leaseholders were liable for £536,182 of the disputed sums (plus IPT totalling £579,039). The Tribunal also held that the landlords had not proved entitlement to the full claimed sums because of poor disclosure and limited evidence and therefore assessed recoverability downwards rather than remitting.
Fitzroy Place Residential Limited & Ors v Angus Lovitt & Ors [2024] UKUT 63 (LC) 19 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether clause 6.2 of a standard residential lease allowed the landlord to abandon the area-based "primary" apportionment in clause 6.1 and instead apply a permanent blanket alternative method to all Estate service-charge expenditure. The Upper Tribunal agreed with the First-tier Tribunal that clause 6.2 permits only ad hoc departures tied to particular items or types of expenditure and does not authorise wholesale replacement of the primary area-based method. The appeal was dismissed and the Company’s blanket allocation methodology was held not to accord with the private residential leases; further accountancy/quantum matters were to be dealt with at a resumed hearing.
Taqeer Shah & Anor v Linda McLaughlin & Ors [2024] UKUT 69 (LC) 18 March 2024 This appeal concerned a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision ordering Mr Shah to repay £21,000 to six former tenants after finding 19 Somerset Road was an unlicensed house in multiple occupation (HMO) and that Mr Shah, not his company TSMB Ltd, was the relevant landlord. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT's factual findings (including that Mr Shah was the landlord), rejected Mr Shah's claim of a reasonable excuse based on being deceived by letting agents, and affirmed the FTT's exercise of discretion in setting the rent-repayment order at 70% of the rent. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Rakesh Patel & Ors v Liam Philip Spender & Ors [2024] UKUT 62 (LC) 15 March 2024 Owners of eleven terraced houses in the St David's Square scheme applied under s.84(1) Law of Property Act 1925 to modify a covenant prohibiting alterations affecting external appearance to permit rear ground-floor and loft extensions. The Tribunal found the proposed works were a reasonable use but held it lacked jurisdiction under s.84(1)(aa) because the covenant secured practical benefits of substantial value—principally preservation of the estate's unified architectural appearance and prevention of cumulative "thin end of the wedge" erosion—and dismissed the application. Offers of contractual protections and procedural safeguards were not accepted as neutralising those substantial benefits.
Solomon Unsdorfer v Octagon Overseas Limited & Ors [2024] UKUT 59 (LC) 15 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether a tribunal‑appointed manager under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 can be an "accountable person" under Part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The Upper Tribunal agreed with the First‑tier Tribunal that such a manager is not an accountable person because the manager's repairing obligations arise from the tribunal's management order, not "under a lease" nor "by virtue of an enactment." The manager's appeal was dismissed and the FTT's identification of the estate owners as accountable persons was upheld, subject to the possibility of FTT variation of the management order to avoid practical overlap.
Brian Larman v The Estate of Gerald Ernest Linzell & Ors [2024] UKUT 57 (LC) 4 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether Mr Larman could be registered as proprietor by adverse possession of a small triangular area in his garden, where the FTT found his reasonable belief that the land was his ended in 2007 because of a Land Registry index map search. The Upper Tribunal admitted new evidence from the solicitor who commissioned that 2007 search, found the FTT’s inference implausible, concluded Mr Larman did not know the triangle was unregistered, allowed the appeal and directed registration under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.
RM Residential Limited v Westacre Estates Limited & Anor [2024] UKUT 56 (LC) 4 March 2024 This appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerned the First-tier Tribunal's refusal to grant retrospective dispensation from the statutory tenant consultation requirement for major works carried out in 2021 by a purchaser of the freehold who had not completed registration at the Land Registry. The Upper Tribunal found multiple legal and factual errors in the FTT's reasoning—notably misapprehension of the registration gap and treating lack of urgency as fatal—and substituted a decision granting dispensation because the FTT had already found, unappealed, there was no tenant prejudice.
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Alan Whitley & Ors [2024] UKUT 55 (LC) 27 February 2024 This Upper Tribunal allowed two appeals by Wyldecrest against first-tier tribunal decisions that had treated reconfiguration of parking/green-space into additional pitches as a substantial decrease in amenity and disapplied the statutory RPI/CPI presumption, awarding nil increases. The UT held that a decrease in amenity under paragraph 18(1)(aa) can be relevant even where occupiers had no contractual right to the amenity, that tribunals may displace the inflation presumption for loss of amenity but must not simply choose between full inflation or nil and must determine and explain a reasonable new pitch fee (including pitch-by-pitch effects), and that a prior uncontested agreed increase does not prevent later reliance on an earlier deterioration unless a tribunal has previously determined and taken that deterioration into account. The matters were remitted to the original tribunals for redetermination with guidance.
On Tower UK Limited v British Telecommunications PLC [2024] UKUT 51 (LC) 23 February 2024 This case concerns whether a roof lease at BT's Kenton Road telephone exchange held by On Tower is an Electronic Communications Code agreement and whether BT's paragraph 31 notice to terminate that lease was valid. The Tribunal held the building is not devoted solely to enclosing electronic communications apparatus, so the lease is a Code agreement, and that BT's paragraph 31 notice of 3 October 2022 (proposing termination 8 April 2024) met paragraph 31(3)(b) and was therefore valid without the need for a prior valid contractual break notice. The Tribunal left to a later stage the question whether BT can establish the substantive paragraph 31 grounds for termination.
Michael Connell & Anor v Beal Developments Limited & Ors [2024] UKUT 54 (LC) 21 February 2024 The appellants challenged the First-tier Tribunal's striking-out of their 2020 service‑charge applications for Burton Waters. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was wrong to strike out the applications: a leaseholder’s statutory right to an FTT determination cannot be removed by a decision in proceedings to which they were not a party, and the FTT must not attribute the motives of a non‑party to the applicants. The UT set aside the striking‑out orders and remitted the matter to a differently constituted panel for case management and determination.
Salvation Army Housing Association v Philip Kelleway [2024] UKUT 53 (LC) 21 February 2024 The Upper Tribunal allowed the landlord's appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's reasoning and held the tenancy was a monthly assured periodic tenancy (having become non-shorthold after the starter period). The UT held that because the tenancy contained a contractual provision for rent increases the landlord was not limited by section 13(1)(b) and could follow the contractual rent-variation procedure; the FTT's decision to strike out the tenant's reference stands but for the correct legal reason. Permission to appeal had been properly sought.
Paolo Clemente v Mindmere Limited [2024] UKUT 50 (LC) 20 February 2024 This appeal concerned whether Mindmere Ltd's issue of County Court proceedings for unpaid service charges waived its right to forfeit the lease. The Upper Tribunal rejected the waiver/election argument and held that pursuing a money judgment for service charges does not, of itself, waive the right to forfeit. As a result the FTT's assessment that an administration charge of £15,563 was payable under the lease was upheld for the purposes of this appeal.
Peabody Trust v Carole Welstead [2024] UKUT 41 (LC) 19 February 2024 Peabody Trust appealed an FTT rent determination reducing a proposed rent increase for Miss Welstead’s assured tenancy, principally challenging a large "managing agent block" fixed service charge item. The Upper Tribunal held the landlord (Catalyst/Peabody) had been on notice to explain the charge but failed to do so; nevertheless the FTT was entitled to rely on the panel’s general experience to reduce the management charge and fix the service charge at £39/week. The appeal was dismissed.
LDC (Ferry Lane) GP3 Ltd v Valentina Garro & Ors [2024] UKUT 40 (LC) 12 February 2024 This appeal concerned rent repayment orders (RROs) after two cluster flats were managed without additional HMO licences under a borough-wide designation; the FTT found the offence proved, rejected the landlord's "reasonable excuse" defence, deducted a landlord-paid utilities allowance, and ordered repayment of 50% of net rent (about £23,000). The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was entitled to reject the reasonable excuse (absence of individual notice did not, without more, excuse failure to inquire and comply) and that deducting utilities and awarding a proportion of net rent was a permissible way to quantify an RRO. The appellant’s appeal and the respondents’ cross-appeal were dismissed.
Daejan Investments Limited v Nigel Collins & Anor [2024] UKUT 26 (LC) 9 February 2024 This appeal to the Upper Tribunal reheard a First-tier Tribunal valuation of the premium payable to extend a lease at 207 Ashley Gardens under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, concentrating on choice and adjustment of comparables, the value of parking and tenant-made alterations, and the appropriate discount for Act rights and relativity to derive the existing lease value. The Tribunal selected five specific comparables, used the UK HPI (Westminster flats) for time adjustment, treated the additional WC/kitchen as tenant alterations with no market-value deduction, allowed about £5,000 for a precarious parking possibility, adopted an Act-rights value of 5.85% and a relativity of 74.8%, and calculated the premium at £208,109.
Tower Hamlets Community Housing Limited v Leaseholders of Painter House [2024] UKUT 37 (LC) 9 February 2024 This appeal concerned whether the Upper Tribunal should vary Painter House leases so that residential lessees would bear a larger share of service charges attributable to a ground‑floor commercial unit occupied by the landlord. The tribunal held that the word "proportions" in s.35(4)(b) can include descriptive proportions (e.g. "a fair proportion"), so the statutory gateway was met, but declined to exercise its s.38 discretion to impose the variation because doing so would be unreasonable and substantially prejudicial to the leaseholders. The FTT's consented amendment replacing "Building" with "Block" was confirmed; no 1/24 apportionment was ordered.
Blackhorse Investments (Borough) Limited v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark [2024] UKUT 33 (LC) 5 February 2024 This appeal concerned a Rule 54 application to set aside an Upper Tribunal order under s.84(1) LPA 1925 that had modified covenants in a lease (the Black Horse). The Tribunal found service on Southwark was effective and there was no misleading of the Tribunal, but held that parts of the original order exceeded s.84(1) jurisdiction: the prohibition on assignment of parts (clause 3(i)) and the positive/keep‑open covenant (3(o)) could not be modified, clause 3(k) was validly modified, clause 3(n) could only be modified in a limited way, and clause 3(p) was unaffected; the order was set aside in part and remade within those limits.
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Hongmei Wang [2024] UKUT 24 (LC) 29 January 2024 This appeal concerned whether two statutory notices of intent served by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council sufficiently "set out ... the reasons for proposing to impose the financial penalty" under Schedule 13A(3)(b). The UT held that, read with an earlier schedule of works and photographs which the recipient had, the brief notices of intent were sufficiently particularised and therefore not invalid. The Council's appeal was allowed, the FTT's quashing of the final notices was set aside, and the remaining appeals were remitted to a differently constituted FTT for rehearing.
Alistdair Barclay Brown v Richard John Ridley & Anor [2024] UKUT 14 (LC) 23 January 2024 This appeal concerned whether paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 requires the ten-year reasonable‑belief period to be the ten years ending on the (deemed) application date or may be any ten‑year period within the period of adverse possession. The Upper Tribunal held that the Court of Appeal decision in Zarb v Parry is binding: the ten‑year period must end on the application date, allowed the appeal on that ground, dismissed the Ridleys' cross‑appeal, set aside the First‑tier Tribunal decision and directed cancellation of the Ridleys' application.
Lloyds Banking Group Plc v Burnley Borough Council [2024] UKUT 20 (LC) 22 January 2024 This appeal concerned the compensation payable under s.15 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 to Lloyds as the mortgagee after Burnley Borough Council compulsorily acquired a dilapidated long leasehold house (28 Spenser Street). The Tribunal valued the property at £70,000 as at vesting date, found the mortgagor had not participated, and ordered compensation of £70,000 (plus statutory interest) to be paid to Lloyds in part satisfaction of the mortgage; no costs were awarded.
James Barker v Chantelle Kiran Shokar [2024] UKUT 17 (LC) 17 January 2024 This appeal concerned whether a Ground Floor Room in a house at 14 Bassett Road met the statutory definition of a "self-contained flat" and whether the First-tier Tribunal had made required findings about whether occupiers used premises as their only or main residence. The Upper Tribunal held the Ground Floor Room did meet section 254(8) because it lay below other parts of the building and the three basic amenities were shown to be available for exclusive use, and it found the FTT had also failed to make necessary findings on occupants' status. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the rent repayment order, substituted its own decision that no HMO licence was required and no offence was committed, and noted it would have allowed the appeal on the second ground had the first not disposed of the case.
Crisplane Limited v Plymouth Community Homes Limited [2024] UKUT 15 (LC) 16 January 2024 This appeal concerned whether two right-to-buy leases required the tenant to contribute by service charge to roof replacement costs. The Upper Tribunal held the statutory implied repairing covenant (Schedule 6, para 14(2)) imposes a landlord repairing obligation but does not alone import a tenant contribution where the lease's express terms exclude the roof; paragraph 14(4) does not permit rewriting those express exclusions. The FTT decision was set aside and the appellant not liable for the roof works at either flat.
Anthony Rogers & Anor v Michael Dinshaw & Ors [2024] UKUT 1 (LC) 8 January 2024 This appeal concerned an application under s.84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 to discharge or modify a 1980 restrictive covenant preventing extensions without written consent, in respect of two modest rear extensions built in 2018 at 7 Redwood Grove, Bude. The Tribunal found the covenant was not obsolete (ground (a) failed) but held grounds (aa) and (c) were made out: the covenant impeded a reasonable use and did not secure any practical benefit to the objectors, who would not be injured by modification. Ground (b) (consent of all beneficiaries) failed for lack of evidence of unanimous consent. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to modify the covenant to permit retention of the extensions and rejected the objectors’ unsubstantiated compensation claim.
Phillip Robling & Anor v Maurice Fred Doe [2024] UKUT 11 (LC) 8 January 2024 The Upper Tribunal allowed two appeals against First-tier Tribunal orders that had struck out applications for pitch fee determinations under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The UT held the FTT erred in concluding from licence documents alone that the applicants could not establish they lived on the pitches as their only or main residence and that factual questions (including permission to occupy and protected-site status) must be decided at a hearing. The strike-out orders were set aside and the applications restored for further directions or hearing; no substantive findings on entitlement or protected-site status were made.
Gray’s Inn Investments Limited v Sally Claire Jolleys [2024] UKUT 2 (LC) 3 January 2024 This appeal concerned whether an assignee who takes the benefit of a tenant's notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 can be treated as "the tenant by whom the notice is given" and so be liable for the landlord's reasonable costs. The Upper Tribunal allowed the landlord's appeal, holding that section 43(1) and (2) import assigns into references to "the tenant" so the assignee (Ms Jolleys) can be liable for costs; quantum was remitted to the FTT for assessment.
Phoebe Cottam & Ors v Lowe Management Limited [2023] UKUT 306 (LC) 20 December 2023 This appeal concerned whether Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 2004 exempted a building from HMO licensing because the freeholder was a listed public body, and who counted as the "person having control" or "managing" the premises under section 263. The Upper Tribunal held that Schedule 14 only applies where the person who manages or has control of the property is a listed body, and that the FTT had misapplied section 263 by treating the freeholder (the CCG) as in control despite leases and receipts of occupiers' payments by others. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on that ground and remitted the case to the FTT to decide whether the respondent (or Lowe) was liable and to quantify any rent repayment order.
Park Green Investments Limited v Teignbridge District Council [2023] UKUT 292 (LC) 15 December 2023 This appeal concerned a £10,000 penalty imposed on Park Green Investments Ltd for non-compliance with an improvement notice; the FTT reduced it to £5,000 but the Upper Tribunal found the FTT had failed to properly consider the statutory defence of reasonable excuse and had misapplied the Council's penalty policy. The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT decision, redetermined the matter, concluded the appellant did have a reasonable excuse for non-compliance (particularly access issues to Flat 2 and clearing escape routes) and quashed the financial penalty.
Fosse Urban Projects Limited v Robert Whyte & Ors [2023] UKUT 286 (LC) 8 December 2023 This appeal concerned an application to discharge or modify a 1996 restrictive covenant on land at 9 Buttercup Drive, Wymondham after a house was built and occupied in breach of the covenant. The Tribunal found jurisdiction to modify under s.84(1)(a) (obsolescence) and s.84(1)(aa) (impeded reasonable use and benefits not of substantial value) but refused to discharge or modify in the exercise of its discretion because the applicant had deliberately built in breach of the covenant and offered no satisfactory explanation; the objectors would be injured. The application was therefore refused and the objectors retain their rights to seek enforcement or damages.
Jahangir Hussain v London Borough of Newham [2023] UKUT 287 (LC) 6 December 2023 This appeal concerned whether the phrase "has been convicted of a banning order offence" in ss 15–16 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 is confined to unspent convictions, and whether the First-tier Tribunal acted irrationally in admitting spent convictions under s 7(3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The Upper Tribunal held the statutory words mean what they say and are not limited to unspent convictions, and that the FTT was not irrational in admitting the spent convictions and imposing a three-year banning order. The appeal was dismissed and the FTT's banning order stands.
Kwasi Date-Bah & Anor v Rachel Radice [2023] UKUT 289 (LC) 4 December 2023 This appeal concerned a rent repayment order made by the First-tier Tribunal against Mr and Mrs Date-Bah for managing an unlicensed selective-licence property. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal because the FTT refused an adjournment of a hearing on two working days' notice, which deprived the landlords of a fair opportunity to prepare and give evidence, and set aside the decision on quantum, remitting the matter for re-determination by a different panel.
Darren Stuart Yarnold & Ors v Senada Ziga & Ors [2023] UKUT 284 (LC) 1 December 2023 This appeal concerned whether joint venture agreements that promised the lender a legal charge over land impliedly prevented the borrower from disposing of the plots before that charge was registered, and whether dispositions in breach of such an implied term were "unlawful" under s.42(1)(a) Land Registration Act 2002. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's implication of a term that the proprietor would not dispose of the plots until the promised legal charge was registered (unless the lender consented), held that dispositions in breach were "unlawful" for s.42(1)(a) purposes, and dismissed the appeal, ordering entry of the respondents' restriction and cancelling the appellants' registration applications.
Louise Irvine v Dr Anthony Metcalfe & Ors [2023] UKUT 283 (LC) 30 November 2023 This appeal concerned a rent repayment order (RRO) relating to an unlicensed HMO at 20 Hailsham Road. The Upper Tribunal held the First‑tier Tribunal (FTT) lacked power to order repayment for periods before Uptown’s disclaimer because a written company let agreement created a tenancy, set aside the FTT decision for inadequate reasoning on the landlord’s reasonable‑excuse defence for 7 Feb–18 Aug 2019, and on redetermination rejected the defence and made RROs limited to 7 Feb–18 Aug 2019 in specified sums. No RRO was made for periods before 7 Feb 2019 or after 18 Aug 2019.
Roger Brookhouse & Anor v The Environment Agency [2023] UKUT 282 (LC) 30 November 2023 This appeal concerned whether the Environment Agency's 2014–17 tidal defence works caused a sustained rise in groundwater at The King's Lodging and thereby damaged the claimants' Grade II listed house. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that groundwater rose by about 0.5–1.0m as a result of the works, that the rise caused the observed and ongoing structural and damp deterioration, and that quantum will be decided later.
Adriatic Land 5 Limited v The Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2023] UKUT 271 (LC) 13 November 2023 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal lawfully imposed a condition preventing the landlord from recovering its costs of a dispensation application from long leaseholders, and whether paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 bars recovery of those costs from qualifying leaseholders. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT’s Costs Condition was unlawful for procedural unfairness and substantive error, set that part of the decision aside, granted dispensation unconditionally, and recorded that paragraph 9 (from its commencement on 28 June 2022) prevents qualifying leaseholders being charged for such qualifying legal or professional costs. Some related s.20C applications to the FTT remain for determination.
Panashe Muskwe & Anor v Michelle Cochrane [2023] UKUT 262 (LC) 31 October 2023 The Tribunal considered an application to modify restrictive covenants on 6 Hereford Drive to permit use as a C2 residential care home for up to four children in accordance with planning permission (ref 19/01899/FUL). It found the proposed C2 use a reasonable use impeded by the restrictions, that the impediment secured no practical benefit to the objector (No. 4), and granted modification to permit the C2 use subject to the referenced planning permission and any renewals.
Hasan Kazi v Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2023] UKUT 263 (LC) 30 October 2023 This appeal concerned three civil penalties imposed on Mr Kazi by Bradford Council for breaches of improvement notices and HMO management regulations; the First-tier Tribunal upheld the offences and applied the council's enforcement policy to set penalties. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT unlawfully fettered its discretion by rigidly applying the council's 5% mitigation cap and a policy rule that penalties could not be less than the cost of compliance, allowed additional mitigation (including tenant conduct and works done), set aside the original penalties and substituted reduced penalties totalling £26,500. The FTT's findings on culpability (high) and harm (medium) were upheld and the totality challenge failed.
Peter Martin Kay v Joanne Sarah Cunningham & Anor [2023] UKUT 251 (LC) 24 October 2023 This appeal concerned Mr Kay’s application under s.84 LPA 1925 to modify a 2005 covenant requiring Lea Hurst to be “a single private residence” so limited bed & breakfast lettings could continue. The Tribunal rejected change-of-neighbourhood (ground (a)) but found grounds (aa) and (c) made out: the covenant unreasonably impeded a modest B&B use, and modification would not injure the covenant-holders. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant modification, subject to agreed wording and a suggested vehicle-use limitation.
Paul Howard & Ors v Sunita Surana [2023] UKUT 248 (LC) 23 October 2023 This appeal concerned applications by purchasers of two estate plots to modify estate covenants to regularise access and houses built after earlier permission and in breach of the 2016 Tribunal conditions (notably a preserved front hedge). The Upper Tribunal found that the completed accesses and larger/relocated houses amounted to a reasonable user and that maintaining the covenant did not secure a substantial practical benefit to the neighbours, so the applicants met s.84(1)(aa) LPA 1925; the Tribunal exercised its discretion to permit modification limited to the constructed permissions and access, while preserving the hedge except where driveways have been created and leaving claims for past breaches intact.
Jalay Enterprises Limited v Harrison Ramsdale & Ors [2023] UKUT 247 (LC) 11 October 2023 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal lawfully debarred Jalay Enterprises from a rent-repayment hearing after the company failed to comply with directions. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT had not properly considered the appellant’s 9 September application for an extension (which explained the delay) and therefore the debarring order and resulting rent repayment order could not stand. The rent-repayment order was set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted panel, with the UT directing admission of the appellant’s 9 November witness statement and statement of case.
Dr Lellis Francis Braganza v The Riverside Group Limited [2023] UKUT 243 (LC) 2 October 2023 This appeal concerned whether section 27A(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 effectively voided a lease clause making the landlord’s surveyor determinative of annual service‑charge apportionments, and whether the surveyor’s apportionment in this case was rational. The Upper Tribunal held that s.27A(6) did not deprive the surveyor of the contractual role here, and on a rationality review the surveyor’s apportionment was not irrational. The FTT’s decision that the service charges were payable in full was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Edouard Cussinel & Anor v Alan Guerin & Ors [2023] UKUT 235 (LC) 25 September 2023 The appeal concerned rent repayment orders made against Mr and Mrs Cussinel after an FTT found they controlled an unlicensed HMO; tenants sought to rely on Companies House evidence that the intermediate tenant company was dissolved, arguing s.18(1) Housing Act 1988 thereby converted their subtenancies into direct tenancies of the Cussinels. The Tribunal declined to admit the late Companies House evidence because, even if credible, it would not have altered the legal outcome, and held that on dissolution the company's tenancies vest as bona vacantia in the Crown so the superior tenancy did not end for s.18(1) purposes. The Tribunal indicated it would allow the landlords' appeal and set aside the FTT's orders unless tenants advanced a realistic challenge within 14 days.
Clara Feige Vila Moreira & Ors v Nicholas and Varuni Morrison [2023] UKUT 233 (LC) 21 September 2023 This appeal concerned whether a rent repayment order (RRO) for an unlicensed HMO should be calculated by reference to the whole rent (because tenants were jointly and severally liable) or limited to the rent each applicant actually paid. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s approach that an RRO is a repayment confined to amounts the applicant actually paid during the relevant period and rejected the argument that joint and several liability entitled each tenant to recover the whole rent. The appeal was dismissed; permission to seek appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law remains available.
Castlefield Property Limited v National Highways Ltd [2023] UKUT 217 (LC) 19 September 2023 This appeal concerned compensation for compulsory acquisition of the only access to the Cheshire Lounge under the A556 Development Consent Order, focusing on valuation at the date of acquisition and heads of Rule 6 disturbance. The Tribunal held valuation must reflect only matters known or reasonably anticipated at the valuation date (10 Nov 2014), rejected hindsight, made a 30% combined allowance for reduced access/prominence and uncertainty over easements, and awarded injurious affection £360,000 and Rule 6 disturbance £560,626 (aggregate £947,501 before interest and adjustments).
Russell Stewart Lacy v Homeselect Finance (No.3) Limited [2023] UKUT 231 (LC) 19 September 2023 This Upper Tribunal appeal concerned disputed service charge demands for 2–4 Thurlow Road, focussing on whether demands complied with the lease/statute and whether charges (notably major works to the driveway/retaining wall, legal, cleaning and management fees) were payable. The FTT’s finding that the tenant had admitted liability by payments was set aside and replaced with a finding of estoppel by convention that the tenant could not contest the contractual payment mechanism. Liability for the principal driveway charge was reduced to £250 because statutory consultation for qualifying works had failed, a separate £3,015.64 charge was conceded and other adjustments were made to legal, cleaning and management entries. The tribunal left a procedural question on costs for further observations.
Assethold Limited v 159-167 Prince of Wales Road RTM Company Limited [2023] UKUT 220 (LC) 12 September 2023 This appeal concerned whether an RTM company that issued, then withdrew, proceedings asserting that Assethold was the landlord could resist a costs claim under ss 88–89 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 by denying that status. The Upper Tribunal held the RTM company was estopped from denying Assethold's status as landlord for the purpose of recovering costs and allowed a costs order in principle, leaving quantum to the FTT. The UT rejected the contention that applying estoppel unlawfully expanded or subverted the statutory scheme.
David Trevor Fisk v Suffolk County Council [2023] UKUT 214 (LC) 7 September 2023 This appeal concerned a Part I Land Compensation Act 1973 claim by David Fisk for depreciation of 39 Grimwade Close caused by a 40m spur of Pioneer Way. The tribunal found the hypothetical "switched‑off" value at 1 September 2021 was £400,000 and awarded a round‑sum discount of £10,000 (2.5%) for compensable physical factors (notably all‑night rear lighting and traffic noise). The claimant was awarded £10,000; there is a right of appeal on a point of law.
Firstport Property Services Limited v Various Leaseholders of Switch House [2023] UKUT 219 (LC) 7 September 2023 This appeal concerned a First-tier Tribunal order under s.20C LTA 1985 preventing a landlord/management company from recovering its FTT costs through the service charge after leaseholders challenged 2018–19 and 2019–20 charges for roof works. The Upper Tribunal set aside the s.20C order, holding the breach of a covenant to hold a reserve fund in a separate account was irrelevant to the reasonableness of the service charge and that the trivial reductions (principally a partial RopeTech disallowance) could not alone justify depriving the landlord of contractual recovery. The UT also indicated s.20C orders should only operate in favour of persons specified in the application.
Andrew Riddell Dunlop v Rostislav Rostislavavitch Romanoff [2023] UKUT 200 (LC) 29 August 2023 This appeal concerned whether a 1918 conveyance of Lunsford Farm included an adjoining lane (the application land) despite the conveyance plan excluding it. The First-tier Tribunal had preferred the plan, but the Upper Tribunal held that, read with contemporaneous extrinsic evidence, the conveyance did include the lane and alternatively that a corrective interpretation was available to treat the plan exclusion as a mistake. The Upper Tribunal directed registration of the application land to Mr Dunlop.
Adam Davies v Benwell Road RTM Company Ltd [2023] UKUT 197 (LC) 25 August 2023 This appeal concerned whether an interim service charge of £616.60 (paid in 2013) had been refunded or otherwise creditable against a 2014 demand, the recoverability and reasonableness of administration charges, and whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had jurisdiction to assess costs. The Upper Tribunal held there was no proven agreement to refund the £616.60 but recovery of that sum in the 2021 claim was time-barred under the six-year limitation period; administration charges recoverable were limited to £840 and the FTT’s costs assessment was set aside in large part. The appeal succeeded except insofar as the RTM Company was confirmed entitled to £840 for specified administration acts.
Dale Paul Gould v The Environment Agency [2023] UKUT 201 (LC) 24 August 2023 This appeal concerns Mr Gould's claims that the Environment Agency's 2001 works at Langley Mill (a concrete side weir and gabion mattress) and its maintenance obligations under a 1964 Deed caused increased flow, erosion and compensatable damage. The County Court held the Agency must maintain only the small "open decking over" in the deed and that the side channel is not a "control work"; the Upper Tribunal dismissed Mr Gould's compensation claim, finding no tortious wrongful alteration of flow caused by defective 2001 works. The Agency offered to repair the gabion mattress and associated erosion.
Joseph Darryl Douglas v RMB 102 Limited & Anor [2023] UKUT 207 (LC) 22 August 2023 Leaseholders challenged a 180%+ increase in buildings‑insurance service charges paid to a management company and the FTT struck out their s.27 LTA 1985 application as hopeless. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was wrong to strike out, concluded a management company with a right to enforce service charges can fall within the expanded statutory concept of "landlord" so its costs can be "relevant costs", and remitted the matter to the FTT for determination while directing which parties should remain.
Radcliffe Investment Properties Limited v Nigel Keith Meeson & Anor [2023] UKUT 209 (LC) 22 August 2023 This appeal concerned whether leaseholders were liable to reimburse waking-watch costs incurred after fire-safety concerns at Park Rise in 2019. The First-tier Tribunal allowed only the first seven days' cost as "reasonably and properly incurred" and attributed the remainder to the landlord's failure to keep the fire risk assessment under review; the UT dismissed the landlord's appeal and upheld that approach. The result is that leaseholders were not liable for waking-watch costs beyond the initial seven days.
Mark Saunders v Shenfield Limited [2023] UKUT 208 (LC) 21 August 2023 This appeal challenged the FTT's procedural handling and three specific service-charge items. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred in refusing to entertain substantive arguments based on documents disclosed shortly before the hearing in relation to the cleaning contract and certain security-equipment invoices, resulting in the cleaning charge (£11,728.43) being upheld as recoverable and four security invoices totalling £688.30 being excluded (reducing that charge to £4,065). The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to large common-parts refurbishment charges, concluding the FTT was entitled to refuse late challenges which should have been identified earlier.
Mary Middleton & Anor v Karbon Homes Limited [2023] UKUT 206 (LC) 14 August 2023 Two assured tenants appealed the First-tier Tribunal's approval of most service charges levied by Karbon Homes for Magdalene Court (2017–2021), contending Karbon had reclassified rent‑borne items as service charges and had misapportioned monitoring/remote‑help costs. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding clause 57 permits adding genuinely new services only after the required consultation and notice and does not allow reclassification of existing rent‑borne services into chargeable services without rent adjustment, and that the FTT’s factual findings on apportionment and reasonableness were not shown to be wrong.
Rouphina Chinws Onyiliagha v You Move Lets Ltd [2023] UKUT 199 (LC) 11 August 2023 This appeal concerned a landlord's application to increase the market rent for 56 Latymer Road and the FTT's decision to determine the matter on the papers. The UT held the FTT had jurisdiction but concluded the FTT did not explain how it resolved contested factual disputes (including tenant's contrary evidence) and that it was unsafe to determine those contested facts without an oral hearing. The UT set aside the FTT decision and remitted the case for rehearing.
Sean Denis Doherty & Anor v Alexander Paskhin [2023] UKUT 196 (LC) 10 August 2023 This appeal concerned an application under s.84 to discharge or modify a 1984 restrictive covenant preventing external alterations at 4 Kerfield Place so the owners could build a rear single‑storey extension and a loft dormer. The Tribunal rejected grounds (a) and (b) but found ground (aa) (and therefore (c)) made out: the proposed works were reasonable and the restriction did not secure practical benefits of substantial value to the objecting adjoining owner. The Tribunal ordered modification limited to the works authorised by the applicants’ certificates of lawfulness, subject to conditions including a one‑occasion indemnity in respect of Party Wall Act costs.
Great Jackson Street Estates Limited v Manchester City Council [2023] UKUT 189 (LC) 8 August 2023 The lessee of 34 Great Jackson Street sought modification of eleven lease covenants under s.84(1) LPA 1925 to enable redevelopment into two residential towers. The Tribunal found no jurisdictional grounds: the covenants were not obsolete, the proposed residential use did not justify modification because the covenants secured substantial non-pecuniary development control, and modification would injure the landlord; it also declined to exercise discretion to intervene. The application was dismissed.
Ipolotas Naujokas v Fenland District Council [2023] UKUT 190 (LC) 8 August 2023 This appeal concerned whether an appeal against civil financial penalties, lodged 25 months after final notices were posted, should have been struck out when the appellant said he never received the notices. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the First-tier Tribunal erred by deciding the time issue without first resolving the primary factual question of receipt and by treating absence of a formal witness statement as dispositive. The matter was remitted for the FTT to receive evidence (including oral evidence if required), decide whether the notices were given, and then address any extension of time.
Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Gateway Properties Ltd & Anor [2023] UKUT 188 (LC) 1 August 2023 CTIL brought Electronic Communications Code references seeking a new Code agreement against APW; after the Supreme Court resolved a preliminary jurisdictional issue and the parties agreed a Deed of Variation, the Tribunal dismissed both references. The Tribunal held CTIL was not the successful party (except on the preliminary issue remitted to the Supreme Court) and ordered CTIL to pay APW's costs of the references on the standard basis. Indemnity costs were refused. Costs of the preliminary issue are to be determined by the Supreme Court.
Rajarajan Narayanasamy Naidu & Anor v Valerie Morton & Ors [2023] UKUT 185 (LC) 1 August 2023 The applicants sought discharge or modification of two restrictive covenants on 52 Beechcroft Manor: a building restriction and a prohibition on business use. The Tribunal rejected the claim that the building restriction was obsolete by reason of change in the character of the neighbourhood (s.84(1)(a)) but found the restriction impeded reasonable use and secured no substantial practical benefit, and accordingly modified the Charges Register under s.84(1)(aa) to permit implementation of the planning permission dated 16 September 2022. The application to modify the business restriction failed for lack of detail about the proposed business uses.
Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited v Leaseholders of Sovereign View [2023] UKUT 174 (LC) 27 July 2023 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal properly attached two conditions to a dispensation from statutory leaseholder consultation for installing an estate-wide fire alarm system. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred: the cost of the waking watch and the landlord's legal costs were not relevant prejudice caused by the consultation breach and so could not justify the imposed conditions. Both conditions were set aside and the dispensation was made unconditional; the UT refused to substitute other conditions.
Hawk Investments Properties Limited v Diana and Christopher Eames & Ors [2023] UKUT 168 (LC) 21 July 2023 This appeal concerned Hawk Investments' challenge to the FTT’s rejection of a landlord’s proposed re‑apportionment of service charges at a mixed‑use development. The UT held that tribunals must assess whether a proposed method satisfies the lease requirement to be “just and equitable” (not merely a rationality review) and, applying that standard, upheld the FTT’s alternative finding that the landlord’s floor‑area apportionment was not just and equitable. The appeal was dismissed and the proposed service charges were not payable.
Roy Stephen Farrow v Duncan Boag [2023] UKUT 167 (LC) 20 July 2023 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) correctly fixed the exact boundary between two neighbouring registered titles based on an application plan and historical conveyancing evidence stemming from a 1913 Indenture. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT had erred: the evidence was insufficient to identify the 1913 boundary with the precision required by the statutory rules and Land Registry guidance, so the application plan could not be verified as the exact boundary. The appeal was allowed and the entries made under the FTT order were directed to be deleted.
Warren James (Jewellers) Limited v Watford Borough Council [2023] UKUT 153 (LC) 20 July 2023 This appeal concerns compensation following compulsory acquisition of Warren James' lease of a Watford shop, focusing on temporary loss of profit during interruption to trading and whether higher ongoing occupational costs at the relocation premises gave rise to compensatable permanent loss. The Tribunal found temporary loss of profit of £184,045 and, on the basis that the relocation unit was the only suitable alternative so the value-for-money presumption was rebutted, awarded permanent loss of £318,469. The Tribunal also found no convincing evidence that the claimant paid above-market rent for the relocation premises and awarded total disturbance compensation of £647,510.95 (exclusive of statutory interest and post-reference costs).
Orbit Housing Association Ltd v Robert Vernon [2023] UKUT 156 (LC) 17 July 2023 This appeal concerned whether a Scheme‑Based Support Charge (SBSC) payable by a sheltered tenant was a "service charge" under the statutory definition and, if so, whether it was reasonable and payable for 2021/22 and 2022/23. The Upper Tribunal held the SBSC is a statutory "variable service charge" and contractually payable, but upheld the First‑tier Tribunal’s factual finding that no services were provided to the tenant in those years and so the charge was not reasonable and could not be recovered for those years. The FTT’s related orders preventing the landlord from passing its legal costs to the tenant were also upheld.
Carlton Vale Limited v Adam Jason Gapper [2023] UKUT 141 (LC) 10 July 2023 This appeal concerned removal of a Land Registry restriction said to arise from a 2015 Payment Agreement the appellant company denied signing. The Tribunal held the company bound by the Agreement despite a forged director’s signature on estoppel/ostensible-authority grounds and that a later charge constituted a "disposal" triggering the £90,000 payment; the Upper Tribunal upheld those findings but held clause 6.4 required removal of the restriction after five years and directed cancellation of the restriction. The appeal was allowed in part: the restriction is to be removed, while the FTT’s findings that the company was bound and that the charge was a Disposal were upheld.
Clarissa Yambasu v London Borough of Southwark [2023] UKUT 152 (LC) 5 July 2023 This appeal concerned estimated major-works service charges for renewal of a district heating system serving the appellant’s leasehold flat. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s findings that the landlord complied with Schedule 3 consultation requirements, that the apportionment method (including bed-weighting and inclusion of non-residential units) was binding by issue estoppel, and that the works were reasonably incurred in the context of a phased renewal programme. The appeal was dismissed.
Wickland (Holdings) Limited v Amelia Esterhuyse [2023] UKUT 147 (LC) 30 June 2023 This appeal concerned an owner’s challenge to a First-tier Tribunal decision refusing a 2022 RPI-linked pitch fee increase for Ms Esterhuyse, an occupier whose pitch hardstanding had been inadequately repaired. The Upper Tribunal rejected the owner’s three grounds of appeal, holding the FTT was not wrong in fact or law to find the defect ongoing, to treat the defective works and resulting distress as displacing the RPI presumption, and to uphold the FTT’s factual evaluation. The appeal was dismissed and the 2022 fee remains £193.32 per month.
Solomon Unsdorfer v Octagon Overseas Limited & Ors [2023] UKUT 137 (LC) 26 June 2023 This appeal concerned whether a 2016 management order for the mixed-use Canary Riverside estate allowed the appointed manager to recoup litigation and professional costs from commercial tenants via the service charge account. The Upper Tribunal held the order must be read as a whole and, absent clear authorisation in the order or leases, the manager cannot generally recover its litigation costs from commercial tenants except where the proceedings relate to Shared Services serving both residential and commercial parts and paragraph 27's conditions are met. The appeal was dismissed and most of the manager's FTT litigation costs remain payable by residential tenants under the Order as interpreted.
London Borough of Waltham Forest v Adil Rahman [2023] UKUT 139 (LC) 19 June 2023 This appeal concerned the First-tier Tribunal's refusal to increase a civil penalty imposed by the London Borough of Waltham Forest for failure to licence a property. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT has power to increase (as well as reduce) such penalties but set aside only the FTT's decision on penalty level because the FTT appears to have been mistaken about the identity of a witness whose evidence affected the penalty assessment, and remitted the penalty determination for rehearing. The FTT's finding that the offence was committed and that no reasonable excuse was shown was left intact.
Renee Daff v Aris Gyalui & Anor [2023] UKUT 134 (LC) 15 June 2023 The Upper Tribunal allowed Ms Daff's appeal in part, setting aside the First-tier Tribunal's £22,230 rent repayment order for letting a selectively licensed property without a licence and substituting a reduced order of £2,000 after redetermining quantum. The UT found the FTT had proceeded on the incorrect factual basis that the appellant made no financial disclosure, and on reassessment concluded the offence was towards the low end of seriousness and that the appellant's poor health and precarious finances warranted a substantially reduced penalty. The Tribunal also rejected retrospective exemption as a ground that would have succeeded.
Michael Connell v Beal Developments Ltd & Ors [2023] UKUT 135 (LC) 14 June 2023 This appeal concerned a Personal Union tenants' association's application for recognition and a subsequent FTT costs order made personally against the association's secretary, Mr Connell, after the association withdrew the application. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding there was no basis to make a personal costs order against Mr Connell because the proceedings were brought by the unincorporated association and he acted as its agent; the FTT’s stated reasons did not establish that his conduct was sufficiently unreasonable to justify personal liability.
Leicester City Council v Nikita Morjaria [2023] UKUT 129 (LC) 7 June 2023 Leicester City Council appealed the FTT's reduction of a £29,817 civil penalty imposed on Ms Morjaria for controlling an unlicensed HMO at 100 Bluegates Road. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT had erred by assessing a key witness's evidence in isolation and failing to consider the evidence as a whole on duration, substituted a penalty of £18,000, and upheld the FTT's discretion to depart from the Council's penalty policy and to refuse a discrete investigative-cost addition.
Hasan Kazi V Bradford MDC [2023] UKUT 128 (LC) 6 June 2023 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal lawfully refused an extension of time for Mr Kazi to appeal a financial penalty under the HMO management regulations. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT failed to engage with or give reasons for rejecting Mr Kazi’s explanation for delay (illness with Covid and age) and set aside the strike‑out, reinstating his underlying appeal for further directions.
Kathryn Anne Lea & Ors v GP Ilfracombe Management Company Limited & Ors [2023] UKUT 108 (LC) 30 May 2023 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) applied the correct test under rule 13(1)(b) when refusing most of leaseholders' costs arising from disputes over 2021 service‑charge demands at Ilfracombe Holiday Park. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT applied the correct objective test for "unreasonable conduct", was entitled to focus on the substance of the service‑charge proceedings rather than unrelated High Court fraud proceedings or corporate connections, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the FTT's limited costs award (only £864 against GPIMCL).
Naomi Rachel Knapp v Bristol City Council [2023] UKUT 118 (LC) 24 May 2023 This appeal challenges a five-year banning order made after Naomi Knapp pleaded guilty to eight offences relating to HMO management; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The UT held the First-tier Tribunal properly assessed the seriousness of the offences (permitted to take account of the criminal fines and its own experience) and that a banning order prohibiting "letting housing" can, in principle, extend to existing tenancies; the stay was lifted and the ban will apply to existing tenancies from 1 December 2023 subject to the appellant's right to apply to the FTT.
Andrew Fraser v Hertsmere Borough Council [2023] UKUT 94 (LC) 11 May 2023 This appeal concerned the market value on 9 March 2018 of 111 Strafford Gate, a long-unoccupied, disused 1935 semi-detached house subject to a CPO, focusing on its state of disrepair and any development potential. The Tribunal accepted a comparable sale approach (preferring 63 The Walk), adjusted for plot, lack of parking and proximity to town, deducted realistic repair costs scaled from a contractor tender, and fixed value at £345,000 with a Basic Loss Payment of £25,875 plus statutory interest.
Kenneth Rowlands & Anor v Gregory Bishop & Anor [2023] UKUT 102 (LC) 11 May 2023 This appeal concerned a First-tier Tribunal refusal to register parts of the Rowlands' garden as possessed land. The Upper Tribunal held that Mr Rowlands did genuinely and reasonably believe for the requisite period that the fenced land was his, and that an informal/oral boundary arrangement can suffice for the reasonableness requirement in paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6. The UT set aside the FTT's negative finding on belief and directed the registrar to treat the application as if the respondents' objection had not been made.
A Grantor v A Grantee [2023] UKUT 23 (LC) 3 May 2023 This appeal addressed whether the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) can award costs in a reference by consent under a 1949 Deed of Grant. The Tribunal held it has power to award costs under Rule 10(6)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 because the claim is for injurious affection, but it does not have power to award costs under section 61 of the Arbitration Act 1996 when acting as arbitrator in such a reference. The earlier conditional costs order for £8,000 was therefore within the Tribunal’s power under Rule 10(6)(b).
Dal Virk (Valuation Officer) v Moor Lane Self-Storage Limited [2023] UKUT 93 (LC) 18 April 2023 This appeal concerned the rateable valuation of a concrete yard used for self-storage with removable containers, disputing whether land under containers should be excluded, the correct site area, container annual value, and a slope allowance. The Tribunal held the hereditament should be valued as the whole site with a separate annual value for the containers, fixed the site area at 1,453.75 m², derived a per-container annual value by decapitalising known acquisition cost at the statutory rate (£71.90 per 20ft equivalent), allowed a 5% end allowance for slope, and determined a rateable value of £17,100 effective 8 April 2017.
Young Cammiade, An Application by [2023] UKUT 96 (LC) 13 April 2023 This case concerned an application by Ms Young Cammiade to discharge a title restriction requiring the owner of No.3's consent to registration of transfers or leases of her long lease of No.1 Acacia Grove. The Tribunal held that section 84(1) LPA 1925 (with s.84(12) extending to long leases) empowers it to discharge restrictions affecting how land may be used but does not extend to a restriction that solely regulates completion of dispositions by registration. The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the restriction was not a covenant "as to the user" of the land.
Anthony Orchard & Anor v Alison Mooney & Anor [2023] UKUT 89 (LC) 11 April 2023 This appeal concerned an FTT costs order finding the appellants had acted unreasonably and ordering them to pay costs under rule 13(1)(b). The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the FTT's costs decision and concluded the appellants had a reasonable explanation for their conduct, in part because relevant material (Mr Pendle’s report) had been withheld and the FTT had not properly assessed all evidence. The UT remitted the matter, allowing parties to apply further on costs within 14 days.
Aneesh Limited v Peter Mark Hinchliffe & Ors [2023] UKUT 82 (LC) 5 April 2023 This appeal concerned whether Aneesh Ltd, the freeholder of flats 3–6, could recover compensation under Schedule 6 para 5(2)(a) of the 1993 Act for diminution in value of neighbouring freehold flats 1–2 (owned by Haveli Ltd) resulting from collective enfranchisement, and whether the corporate veil should be pierced so Haveli’s property counted as Aneesh’s. The Upper Tribunal held the statutory wording requires a proprietary interest in the “other property” and does not extend to property in which the claimant has no proprietary interest. The tribunal also rejected Aneesh’s submission that DHN compelled piercing the veil, distinguishing DHN on its facts (irrevocable occupation/licence and closer group integration), and dismissed the appeal.
Avon Grounds Rents Limited v Kirstie Ward [2023] UKUT 88 (LC) 4 April 2023 Avon Ground Rents sought to recover costs incurred in First-tier Tribunal proceedings from tenant Kirstie Ward as service/administration charges under the lease after the FTT found she breached repair and notice covenants following flood damage caused by a plumber. The FTT exercised its discretion to prevent the landlord recovering those costs, finding the proceedings were misguided and the costs unreasonably incurred, and the Upper Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s appeal, upholding that discretionary decision.
Anthony Orchard & Anor v Alison Mooney & Ors [2023] UKUT 78 (LC) 3 April 2023 The Upper Tribunal allowed fresh evidence on an appeal by Mr and Mrs Orchard and set aside the First‑tier Tribunal's (FTT) 22 October 2021 decision because it had been reached without knowledge of materially relevant facts and was therefore misleading. On remaking the decision the Upper Tribunal dismissed the Orchards' application to discharge the tribunal‑appointed manager and directed that the manager remain for the remainder of her term, weighing practical prospects of completing remedial works and lack of an alternative manager against shortcomings in the manager's candour.
Assethold Limited v The Lessees of Flats 1-14 Corben Mews [2023] UKUT 71 (LC) 21 March 2023 This Upper Tribunal appeal concerned multiple service‑charge demands by Assethold from lessees of Flats 1–14 Corben Mews, including disputed estimated future charges, waking‑watch and repair costs, insurance valuation and prior‑landlord insurance. The UT refused Assethold permission to attack the FTT’s finding that the leases did not permit estimated future service‑charge demands, upheld the lessees’ entitlement to some costs, set aside some FTT reductions and awards, upheld the insurance‑valuation charge as payable, reduced the fire‑proofing charge to £800 (incl. VAT), and held that prior‑landlord insurance sums were not payable by the lessees; it also remade a s.20C order preventing Assethold from passing FTT costs to the service charge.
Baron Estate Management Limited v Wick Hall (Hove) RTM Company Limited [2023] UKUT 62 (LC) 13 March 2023 This appeal concerned whether procedural defects under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 defeated an RTM company's claim to acquire the right to manage Wick Hall. The Upper Tribunal held that failure to serve the required notices of invitation on the qualifying tenants of flats 30 and 154 meant the claim notice could not validly be given, and that the leaseholder of flat 87 was a qualifying tenant-member who had been omitted from the claim notice. The appeal was allowed on those issues and the RTM company did not acquire the right to manage; the UT did not decide whether omission of a qualifying tenant-member's name is always fatal.
The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport v Unknown Owners [2023] UKUT 53 (LC) 1 March 2023 This case concerned whether Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council could pay tribunal-determined compensation into court and execute deed polls to vest title in land where the owners were unknown and no notices to treat had been served. The Tribunal held that, under Schedule 2 to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (as framed by the Acquisition of Land Act 1981), notices to treat are required only for persons known to the acquiring authority after diligent inquiry, and are not required for unidentifiable owners. The Tribunal directed that the Council could pay the compensation into court and then execute deed polls vesting title in the five parcels without further steps.
Bruce Anthony Reekie v Oakwood Court Residents Association Limited [2023] UKUT 45 (LC) 16 February 2023 This case concerned whether the leaseholder of Flat 5 must contribute to refurbishment of a communal lift when he has a contractual right to use the lift but in fact does not use it. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal, holding that "have the use of" means the right or ability to use the lift and that the management company’s power to charge "the whole or such part as the Company thinks fit" permits charging irrespective of actual use. The appeal was dismissed and the tenant remains liable for the on-account contribution.
Ludgate House Limited v Andrew Ricketts (Valuation Officer) & Anor [2023] UKUT 36 (LC) 14 February 2023 This appeal concerned the correct valuation and effective date of a Valuation Officer alteration (VON1) that had entered Ludgate House as a single composite hereditament occupied under a temporary property‑guardian scheme from 1 July 2015. The Upper Tribunal applied the reality principle to identify the mode/category of occupation as office use subject to the guardianship scheme, treated the domestic element as limited to the four units actually occupied on the material day, upheld the Valuation Officer’s rateable value of £3,390,000, and held VON1 effective 1 July 2015. The appellant’s arguments that the Building should be treated wholly as domestic or that Regulation 14(7) altered the effective date were rejected.
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Julie Truzzi-Franconi [2023] UKUT 42 (LC) 10 February 2023 This appeal concerned whether a prescribed-form pitch-fee review notice was invalid because it stated an incorrect review date. The Upper Tribunal held the notice was not invalid: viewed objectively it fulfilled the statutory purpose and a reasonable recipient could understand the proposed increase, so the FTT erred in dismissing the application. The Tribunal substituted a decision that the revised fee of £117.77 runs from the contractual review date 1 February 2022 and invited parties to say if there is any reason not to implement that figure.
Richard Charles Hodgson & Anor v Terence Cook & Ors [2023] UKUT 41 (LC) 8 February 2023 This case concerns an application by Mr and Mrs Hodgson to modify a restrictive covenant preventing business use of 7 Larkin Avenue so they could run a garden‑cabin beauty business. The Tribunal found the covenant did impede that use but nevertheless secured practical benefits of substantial value to the estate (amenity, quiet enjoyment and property values) and refused modification under s.84 LPA 1925. Grounds of alleged consent and lack of injury failed for want of evidence and because modification would injure beneficiaries. The breach by the applicants did not require separate penalisation in the exercise of discretion.
Charles Hunt (Holdings) Limited v 77-82 Bridle Close Freehold Limited [2023] UKUT 32 (LC) 7 February 2023 This appeal concerned the premium payable on collective enfranchisement of a six-flat block, focusing on whether the FTT wrongly concluded an expert had made a post-hearing calculation error and on valuation points (roof development value, value of deeds of variation to permit sub-letting, and value of additional communal grounds). The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal and ordered a re‑hearing because the FTT had formed a new view about an expert’s error without giving the parties an opportunity to comment. On rehearing the tribunal held the “keep and occupy… as a single private residence” covenant prohibited sub‑letting, attributed no value to deeds of variation, found a small “hope” development value for the roof, and assessed a modest value for the additional grounds, yielding a premium of £16,288.
Paul Fashade v Mailna Albustin & Ors [2023] UKUT 40 (LC) 7 February 2023 This appeal concerned rent repayment orders made after Mr Fashade's HMO remained unlicensed between 13 August 2020 and 13 January 2022. The Upper Tribunal found the First-tier Tribunal erred by (a) failing properly to treat evidence that a licence application/renewal had been made during the claimed period (and so by misapplying the s.72(4)/(5) defences) and (b) by calculating quantum without assessing seriousness, mitigation or making findings about landlord/agent conduct. The FTT decision was set aside and the cases remitted to a differently constituted FTT for redetermination; the UT also reduced the award to Albustin & Taylor by about three months on the evidence before it.
The Borough Council of Gateshead v City Estate Holdings Limited [2023] UKUT 35 (LC) 7 February 2023 The Upper Tribunal allowed Gateshead Council's appeal against the FTT's cancellation of civil penalties imposed on City Estate Holdings for managing properties in a selective-licensing area without licences. The Tribunal found the respondent had not established the statutory defence of "reasonable excuse" (reliance on solicitors was insufficient) and held that the FTT should not displace liability because of the Council's enforcement policy or the landlord's reputation; it substituted decisions that penalties should be imposed and remitted assessment of penalty amounts to the FTT.
George Marigold & Ors v Robert Wells [2023] UKUT 33 (LC) 3 February 2023 This appeal concerned whether Mr Wells had a "reasonable excuse" for being in control of an unlicensed HMO after a council officer allegedly told him no licence was then needed and the council would contact him. The Upper Tribunal held the First-tier Tribunal either failed to consider or to explain whether that excuse persisted for the entire alleged offence period and remitted the rent-repayment application to the FTT for reconsideration.
Assethold Limited v Eveline Road RTM Company Limited [2023] UKUT 26 (LC) 2 February 2023 This appeal concerned whether an RTM company validly claimed the right to manage 36 Eveline Road where the claimed "self‑contained part" of the building itself contained smaller self‑contained parts. The Tribunal set aside the FTT decision for failing to apply the physical Division Criteria in s72(3), held that a "self‑contained part of a building" can include a part that contains smaller self‑contained parts, and concluded the RTM claim was valid. The RTM Application is to be reheard/determined accordingly.
Brunswick Mansions Management Company Limited v Triplerose Limited [2023] UKUT 31 (LC) 1 February 2023 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) erred in ordering that a management company could not recover its legal costs from a leaseholder in disputes over service charges, including insurance which the lease nominally made the freeholder's responsibility. The Upper Tribunal held the management company had an interest in the insurance item and had actively contested it (giving evidence and cross-examining), so the FTT was entitled to disallow recovery of the management company's legal costs; the appeal was dismissed and the FTT orders remain in force.
A1 Properties (Sunderland) Limited v Tudor Studios RTM Company Limited [2023] UKUT 27 (LC) 31 January 2023 The appeal concerns whether an RTM company’s failure to serve a statutory claim notice on an intermediate landlord that had no management responsibilities invalidated the RTM claim. The Tribunal applied the Court of Appeal’s decision in Elim Court and rejected the appellant’s challenge, holding the omission did not invalidate the claim and dismissing the appeal.
Housing Solutions v Bartholomew Smith [2023] UKUT 25 (LC) 27 January 2023 This Upper Tribunal decision concerns Housing Solutions' renewed application to modify restrictive covenants affecting land on which affordable homes were built in breach of covenant. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under s.84(1)(c) and s.84(1A)(aa)(a) because the objector, Mr Smith, could not show practical benefits of substantial value (including no proven development value), and rejected strike-out and estoppel objections. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to permit retrospective modification to validate the existing housing, noting the Hospice Trust had accepted compensation and that Millgate’s prior cynical breach did not bar relief here.
Arma Hotels Ltd v Dawn Bunyan (Valuation Officer) [2023] UKUT 3 (LC) 25 January 2023 This appeal concerned the 2017 rateable value of a small Brent hotel and whether a reliable "tone of the list" or comparable rents supported a per-bedroom valuation or whether the shortened receipts & expenditure (R&E) method should be used. The Upper Tribunal found the evidence of a 2017 list tone for small hotels in Brent/Harrow was insufficient, preferred the shortened R&E approach, assessed fair maintainable trade at about £155,000 and applied a 10.5% percentage to fix the rateable value at £16,250. The appeal was allowed in part.
Dawn Bunyan (Valuation Officer) v Acenden Limited [2023] UKUT 17 (LC) 25 January 2023 This appeal concerned the 2017 rating valuation of Ascot House and whether a tenant's Category B fit-out added value to a hereditament valued as vacant and to let on the material day. The Tribunal held that the Category B works largely had general market utility and would attract a rental premium over Category A, increased the rateable value, and set the 2017 RV at £1,000,000. The Tribunal also held that the statutory decapitalisation rate in the 1989 Regulations is not mandatory unless the contractor’s basis is being applied in full.
Tingdene Marinas Limited v Janet Maureen Jaffe [2023] UKUT 16 (LC) 20 January 2023 This appeal concerned whether a Willerby static caravan mounted on a specially designed float and moored at Hartford Marina fell within the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and whether the pitch was a "protected site". The Upper Tribunal held that the caravan component met the statutory caravan definition and that the 2014 certificate of lawful use established lawful residential use, making the pitch a protected site. The appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's conclusions on both points was dismissed.
Anchor Hanover Group v Kenneth Cox [2023] UKUT 14 (LC) 17 January 2023 This appeal concerned whether s.11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 prevents a landlord from recovering service‑charge contributions from an assured tenant for repair and maintenance of a communal lift. The Upper Tribunal held the First‑tier Tribunal was wrong to treat ss.11(1A)/(1B) as prohibiting recovery; it allowed the appeal and determined the tenant (Mr Cox) is liable to contribute to lift repair and maintenance costs claimed since 2016, while prohibiting inclusion of appeal costs in the service charge.
Quantum (Barrowsfield) Limited v Andrew John Bell & Ors [2023] UKUT 2 (LC) 5 January 2023 Quantum (Barrowsfield) Ltd sought modification or discharge under s.84 LPA 1925 of restrictive covenants affecting Nos.2–5 Barrowsfield to permit construction of a 33‑flat building. The Tribunal discharged the 1908 covenant as obsolete but refused to modify the 1963 and 1993 covenants insofar as they benefited Nos.1A–1C, because those covenants secured practical benefits of substantial value (notably protection against overlooking and overbearing). The Tribunal did find that the management company had no substantial practical benefit, leaving discretion to modify as regards that party.
Ross Smith v Waterloo Warehouse RTM Co Ltd [2023] UKUT 8 (LC) 5 January 2023 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) could properly decide contested credibility facts on the papers about whether service/administration charge demands contained prescribed information and whether Mr Smith's payments had been specially allocated. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred by resolving credibility disputes without an oral hearing and by giving inadequate reasons for preferring the RTM company's evidence, set aside those findings, and remitted those issues for rehearing by a different FTT panel. Other FTT findings on some administration charges and certain other matters were left undisturbed.
The Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc v Andrew Ricketts (Valuation Officer) [2023] UKUT 1 (LC) 5 January 2023 This appeal concerned whether parts of two Scientology buildings were exempt from non-domestic rates under paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the 1988 Act. The Tribunal found the chapel at 146 Queen Victoria Street was a place of public religious worship and exempt under para 11(1)(a), and that offices occupied by the organisation in a certified place are exempt under para 11(2)(b) without needing an additional functional connection to the worship space. Much of both buildings qualified as a church-hall-type building exempt under para 11(1)(b), but individual auditing suites, the Academy (fifth floor) and a shrine called "Mr Hubbard's office" were not exempt; most of the Information Centre was also not exempt except for some basement offices/storage. The appeal was allowed in part and the rateable values were to be adjusted accordingly.
English Rose Estates Limited v Praveen Menon and Pradeep Menon & Ors. [2022] UKUT 347 (LC) 19 December 2022 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was unfair in allowing leaseholders to raise a new legal point at the hearing and refusing an adjournment, and whether the leases required leaseholders to contribute to insurance or could be rectified to achieve that. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding the FTT's case-management (allowing the late point with written submissions and no adjournment) was not unfair, and that the leases could not be corrected or construed to permit recovery of the disputed insurance premiums. The FTT's finding that there was no estoppel by convention was also upheld.
Jocelyn May Sutton v Steven Baines & Anor [2022] UKUT 342 (LC) 19 December 2022 Mrs Sutton sought discharge under section 84(1) LPA 1925 of a 1970 covenant restricting 39 Muswell Road to a single private dwelling so she could build a second house on the side garden. The Tribunal found building a house would be a reasonable user and that the covenant impeded that use and secured practical benefits to neighbouring owners, but refused the blanket discharge because no defined, current planning permission or specific proposal existed to allow reliable assessment of whether those benefits were of substantial value. The refusal is final except for costs, with directions for costs submissions.
Secretary of State for Transport v Bleep UK Plc & Ors [2022] UKUT 331 (LC) 16 December 2022 This appeal concerned a CAAD authorising residential development at Rowan House within a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL). The Tribunal held that material considerations (including London’s housing need) did not outweigh the development-plan protection for the SIL, so residential development would not have been permitted. The Tribunal cancelled the 19‑storey residential-inclusive certificate and substituted a certificate permitting mixed industrial/office development with active ground-floor uses and a maximum height of 10 storeys (8–10 storeys appropriate).
Tallington Lakes Limited v South Kesteven District Council [2022] UKUT 334 (LC) 16 December 2022 Tallington Lakes appealed FTT decisions requiring payment of site-licence fees and raising who was the correct licence-holder. The Upper Tribunal held the freeholder (Tallington Lakes Limited) was correctly the licence-holder, found the FTT should not have decided the fee application on paper without a hearing (setting that decision aside), but on the substantive issue substituted its own decision that the site is a "relevant protected site" and ordered payment of the outstanding fees.
Peter Livett & Anor v S Hennings & Ors [2022] UKUT 325 (LC) 7 December 2022 This appeal concerned whether neighbouring owners (the objectors) benefited from restrictive covenants in a 1931 conveyance of 2 Woodland Way by virtue of a building scheme. The tribunal found no building scheme: the conveyance and available historical sales materials did not identify a defined area nor show an intention that covenants be mutually enforceable. As a result the objectors lacked standing under a building-scheme theory and the Livetts' application will proceed under the statutory discharge/modification procedure.
Wyldecrest Park (Management) Ltd v Tony Turner [2022] UKUT 322 (LC) 1 December 2022 This appeal concerned whether the Mobile Homes Act 1983 or the parties' site agreement obliged Wyldecrest to provide Mr Turner with statements of account on request. The Upper Tribunal held there was no express or statutory-implied obligation, no term should be implied into the contract (business efficacy and obviousness tests not met), and the FTT lacked jurisdiction under the 1983 Act to order the statements; the FTT's order was set aside and the application dismissed.
Eastpoint Block A RTM Company Limited v Akehinde Olufunlola Otubaga [2022] UKUT 319 (LC) 29 November 2022 This appeal concerned whether an RTM company that has acquired the right to manage can apply to the tribunal under section 168(4) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 for a determination that a tenant breached lease covenants. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT's strike‑out: only a landlord may make an application under s.168(4), and an RTM company, having only management functions, does not become a landlord and therefore lacks jurisdiction to bring such an application. The RTM company must instead report breaches to the landlord under s.101 so the landlord may consider action.
John Bland Charlton & Anor v Northumbrian Water Limited [2022] UKUT 313 (LC) 25 November 2022 The Tribunal decided a preliminary issue in a claim by owners of Bleach Green Farm that their land had diminished in value because of an underground sewage storage reservoir nearby. It held that "injurious affection" in Schedule 12 para 2(3) of the Water Industry Act 1991 bears the technical meaning developed under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and that "damage to ... any land" in para 2(3) is confined to physical damage or physical factors affecting land, not pure perceptual or non‑physical loss; accordingly the preliminary point was dismissed and the claimants' purely perceptual diminution claim failed.
Nelson Plant Hire Ltd v Dawn Bunyan [2022] UKUT 309 (LC) 24 November 2022 This appeal concerned the 2017 rating list entry for Nelson's Yard, a waste transfer/aggregate processing site; the Upper Tribunal held the hereditament should remain a single assessment but that the Valuation Officer's rateable value was excessive. The Tribunal confined its jurisdiction to the matters raised in the ratepayer’s challenge and, on valuation, preferred a valuation approach starting from the 2013 lease rent (with adjustments) to reduce the RV from £28,750 to £22,500 effective 12 March 2018.
Simon Earle Racing Limited v Dal Virk [2022] UKUT 311 (LC) 24 November 2022 This appeal concerned the rateable value of the Lower Barn racing stables and the correct rent-per-stable to adopt by devaluing the composite rent. The tribunal preferred an "equated-rent" devaluation approach, accepted component allowances (including £50 per horse-walker compartment) and a modest downward adjustment for an American-barn layout, and reached a rateable value of about £12,200. No costs were awarded.
Octagon Overseas Limited & Ors v Circus Apartments Limited [2022] UKUT 302 (LC) 17 November 2022 This appeal concerned whether a 15 April 2016 text message exhibited in landlord-side evidence was admissible or protected by without-prejudice privilege, and whether the unambiguous‑impropriety exception to that privilege applied. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First‑tier Tribunal’s exclusion of the text as a genuine without‑prejudice settlement communication and rejected the submission that the message amounted to unambiguous impropriety. The other permitted appeal ground about CPR 31.22 protection was treated as a non‑point and not finally determined.
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth v Michaela Ann Kelly & Ors [2022] UKUT 290 (LC) 17 November 2022 This appeal challenged whether the council should be dispensed from the section 20 consultation requirements of the 1985 Act. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted unconditional dispensation from section 20, recorded that the council would not seek to recover costs from lessees so the First-tier Tribunal's section 20C orders remain, and made a section 20C order in respect of these proceedings. Directions about the right to seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal were given.
Steven Stuart Johnson & Anor, An Application by [2022] UKUT 294 (LC) 10 November 2022 This Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision concerned an application by Mr and Mrs Johnson to modify two historic restrictive covenants preventing business use of 44 Knights Hill so they could operate an Ofsted-registered childminding business. The Tribunal found that operating a small childminding business for up to six children is a reasonable use of the property, that the 1937 and 1965 covenants impeded that use, and that modification under s.84(1)(aa) was justified because no identifiable persons were entitled to the benefit. The Tribunal ordered amendments to the Charges Register to permit the Ofsted-registered childminding use, subject to conditions and the applicants' acceptance.
Assethold Limited v Nelio Patricio Teixeira Franco [2022] UKUT 285 (LC) 7 November 2022 Assethold Ltd appealed parts of a First-tier Tribunal decision about service and administration charges demanded from Mr Franco. The Upper Tribunal allowed recovery of a one-third instalment of an estimated meter-cupboard works charge (increasing the sum payable by £531) and of a £2,040 pre-issue administration charge, disallowed a £3,600 administration charge relating to 2017 proceedings, and set aside the FTT’s ordering/capping of county court costs. The county court order was to be amended accordingly.
Assethold Limited v Alexandra Adam & Ors. [2022] UKUT 282 (LC) 2 November 2022 This appeal concerned whether waking-watch service charges were "reasonably incurred" under s.19(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The FTT had found the Hydrock report overstated risk and that the waking watch was unnecessary; the Upper Tribunal held the FTT applied the correct two-stage legal test but misapplied it by assessing the decision with hindsight. The UT substituted a decision that one month’s interim waking watch for both contiguous blocks, reduced by 50% for poor service (total £14,000), was reasonably incurred.
Jacqueline Hancher v Luke David & Ors [2022] UKUT 277 (LC) 21 October 2022 This appeal concerned rent repayment orders made against Ms Hancher for operating an unlicensed house in multiple occupation (HMO). The Upper Tribunal held the First-tier Tribunal erred by starting from the maximum possible order rather than first assessing the seriousness of the offending, applied its established methodology to set a starting point at 65% of the rents, and remade repayment orders accordingly; no deductions for utilities were allowed because the appellant failed to produce tenancy agreements or evidence of payments.
Philomina Louisa Reynard Tann v Suni Bhundia & Ors [2022] UKUT 268 (LC) 20 October 2022 This appeal concerned which party must repair a cracked concrete slab forming the balcony/extension roof between two maisonettes (187 and 187A) and whether the freeholder must bear the cost via the service charge. The Upper Tribunal held that, absent an express reservation, the demises included external walls and the horizontal structural slab, that the freeholder was not obliged to repair it, and that the slab belongs with the lower maisonette (187) so 187 must repair while 187A must contribute 50%. The FTT decision was set aside and substituted accordingly; the procedural fairness complaint about a temporary video disconnection failed.
Catherine Bower (Valuation Officer) v The Valuation Tribunal for England [2022] UKUT 262 (LC) 19 October 2022 This appeal arose from a Valuation Tribunal decision ratifying a merger of two contiguous but non‑interconnected hereditaments into a single 2010 list entry (effective 1 June 2015) and refusing a Valuation Officer request to reconstitute the site into three hereditaments. The Upper Tribunal held the 2018 Regulations’ limited extension of time must be narrowly construed and only permits proposals by ratepayers whose legal position was changed by the PICO Act; the VO’s proposed reconstitution was out of time and outside the scope of the ratepayer’s proposal, so the VTE was correct to ratify only the agreed merger. The appeal was dismissed and the VTE amendment (RV £56,500 effective 1 June 2015) stands.
Howe Properties (NE) Limited v Accent Housing Limited [2022] UKUT 273 (LC) 18 October 2022 Howe Properties, owner of long leasehold flats, challenged Accent Housing’s imposition of a flat £300 p.a. “management fee” for long leaseholders. The Upper Tribunal held the leases required a single proportion of the global Annual Service Charge to be applied, so the landlord could not impose a separate tenure‑based flat management charge. The £300 fee was therefore not payable as charged and the matter was remitted to the First‑tier Tribunal (FTT) to recalculate and assess the properly calculated management element for 2017–2019.
Anthony Orchard & Anor v Alison Mooney [2021] UKUT 173 (LC) 13 October 2022 This appeal concerned whether the First‑tier Tribunal (FTT) had power to authorise a manager to raise an interim service‑charge demand of £15,000 by varying an existing management order. The Upper Tribunal held the 18 August 2020 order was a lawful variation under section 24 conferring an additional power on the manager, that its "interim" label and the short procedure were not materially defective, and dismissed the appeal. The decision leaves the FTT order in place subject to the appellants' ordinary statutory remedies (e.g. challenge to reasonableness).
Dorrington Residential Limited v 56 Clifton Gardens Limited [2022] UKUT 266 (LC) 10 October 2022 This appeal concerned whether a landlord's written inspection notice under clause 2.8.1 of a lease was valid, whether the time requested (noon on the specified date) was a "reasonable time" during the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether the tenant breached the covenant to permit entry by failing to facilitate access when sub‑tenants would not admit the landlord's agents. The First-tier Tribunal found the notice formally valid, the time reasonable, and that the tenant had breached the covenant by doing nothing to secure access; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld those findings.
Fairhaven Shipping Company (UK) Ltd v Rolf Hugo Munding [2022] UKUT 260 (LC) 27 September 2022 This appeal concerned whether Fairhaven's transfer of land to a related company (SWL) was a "Disposal" under a Pre-Emption Agreement and whether the SWL sale was on terms "no less favourable" to Fairhaven than those offered to the original grantee, Mr Munding. The Upper Tribunal held the SWL transfer was a "Disposal" but that the terms of the SWL sale (notably deferred payment until registration and non-payment of a 10% deposit) were less favourable to Fairhaven than the Grantor's Notice terms. Fairhaven's appeal was dismissed and Munding's pre-emption and overage rights (and the registered restrictions) survived.
Global Guardians Management Ltd & Ors v London Borough of Hounslow & Ors [2022] UKUT 259 (LC) 27 September 2022 This Upper Tribunal reviewed an FTT decision upholding penalty notices and rent-repayment orders arising from an unlicensed HMO (Stamford Brook Centre) used to house "guardians." It held the rooms’ use was solely residential notwithstanding the property‑protection function, found the GGM–NHSPSL Proposal to be a tenancy in substance, and treated GGM as a "person managing" and Global 100 as a "person having control" (and thus liable), producing mixed success on appeal.
Hafiz Mohammad Aslam v Abdul Rehman [2022] UKUT 251 (LC) 21 September 2022 This appeal concerned whether contracts for sale of 189 Walton Road were exchanged on 14 September 2018. The First-tier Tribunal had found counterpart documents signed and that Mr Rehman acted as Mr Aslam’s agent, concluding exchange occurred; the Upper Tribunal held that the FTT gave inadequate factual basis for that legal conclusion and substituted a decision that no exchange took place. An alternative date of 20 September 2018 was rejected as not pleaded or supported by findings.
Eugene Dowd v Ana Martins & Ors [2022] UKUT 249 (LC) 16 September 2022 This appeal concerned a First-tier Tribunal rent repayment order against the freeholder for managing an unlicensed HMO and five grounds of appeal. The Upper Tribunal rejected challenges on service and witness evidence, allowed that a withdrawing joint tenant does not entitle a remaining joint tenant to recover the whole joint rent, and found the FTT erred in its quantification approach by failing to assess the seriousness of the offence before making deductions. The UT substituted its own calculations using a 45% starting point of relevant rent and adjusted amounts payable to the tenants.
Mehmet Edhem v Muazzez Edhem [2022] UKUT 243 (LC) 7 September 2022 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was wrong to refuse remote evidence from an absent witness and whether it had failed to deal with material adverse evidence before finding that Mehmet had forged Muazzez’s signature on a 2016 TR1 transferring 27 Netherford Road. The Upper Tribunal refused to overturn the FTT’s case-management decision and its central credibility finding that Muazzez did not sign the TR1, dismissing Mehmet’s appeal and leaving the rectification of the register in Muazzez’s favour intact.
Edward Acheampong v Patricia Sanchez Roman & Ors [2022] UKUT 239 (LC) 5 September 2022 This Upper Tribunal decision considers how First-tier Tribunals should calculate rent repayment orders (RROs) under the Housing Act 2004 where landlords failed licensing obligations. The UT held tribunals must start by assessing the seriousness of the offence (not treat full rent as the presumptive starting point), deduct tenant-only utilities, select an appropriate proportion of net rent as the starting point, and then adjust for conduct, financial circumstances and convictions under s.44(4). The UT substituted a 75% net-rent award in Choudhury (£12,600) and set aside the FTT’s quantification in Acheampong, remitting it for further factual findings on utilities and the landlord’s finances.
Adil Catering Limited v The City of Westminster Council [2022] UKUT 238 (LC) 2 September 2022 This appeal concerned financial penalties imposed on the manager of an HMO after council inspection found multiple safety defects said to breach Regulations 4 and 7 of the Management Regulations. The First-tier Tribunal had found the defects proved breaches to the required standard, rejected the defence of reasonable excuse, and imposed a reduced penalty of £15,750; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld those conclusions. The UT held that duties expressed as "ensure" require the manager to achieve the specified state of affairs and that proving defects at the time of inspection establishes a breach unless a reasonable excuse is shown.
Joe and Valerie Fryer v Wayne Cox [2022] UKUT 229 (LC) 2 September 2022 The Upper Tribunal allowed Joe and Valerie Fryer's appeal in part against the VTE decision on the 2017 list rateable value for Apple Jacks Adventure Park, applying the receipts & expenditure (R&E) method and reducing RV from £35,000 to £11,750 (AVD 1 April 2015; material day 1 April 2017). The Tribunal adopted cautious maintainable receipts of £755,000, made specific allowances for costs (including repairs, advertising, insurance, management and working capital), treated actual rates payable at the AVD as an expense, and assessed a tenant's share of 75% producing a rent-equivalent leaving a rounded RV of £11,750.
Margaret Florence Cabo v Karen Tamie Dezotti [2022] UKUT 240 (LC) 2 September 2022 This was an appeal by the freehold owner, Ms Cabo, against a First-tier Tribunal rent repayment order relating to a six‑bed HMO managed and let by Top Holdings Ltd under a management agreement. The Upper Tribunal held that Ms Cabo was not a "person having control" under s.263(1) because she did not in fact receive the rack rent, but upheld the FTT's alternative finding that she was a "person managing" under s.263(3)(b) and, on the facts (Top Holdings acting as agent for an undisclosed principal), treated her as the landlord for rent‑repayment purposes. The appeal was dismissed and the RRO for £9,600 was maintained.
Rachel Camfield & Ors v Nehizena Uyiekpen & Anor [2022] UKUT 234 (LC) 25 August 2022 This appeal concerned a rent repayment order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 alleging the respondents managed an unlicensed HMO because one occupant, Ms Tseng, had used the property as her only or main residence. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of evidence that Ms Tseng’s residence met the statutory test, and the Upper Tribunal upheld that factual conclusion and dismissed the appeal. No rent repayment order was made.
Andrew Bennett v Birmingham Airport Limited [2022] UKUT 228 (LC) 22 August 2022 This appeal records a Part 1 Land Compensation Act claim by Andrew Bennett that Birmingham Airport’s runway extension materially increased aircraft noise at his home and so depreciated its market value; the Tribunal found a measurable increase in peak-event noise and awarded £75,000 compensation. The Tribunal rejected the claimant valuer’s inclusion of an “equivalence” or personal-compensation element beyond market diminution, fixed the switched-on value at £485,000 and the switched-off value at about £560,000. Permission to appeal on points of law remains available.
Properties AY&U Limited v Barham House Freehold Limited [2022] UKUT 231 (LC) 18 August 2022 This appeal concerned the enfranchisement premium for Barham House after a £91,000 auction sale and competing expert valuations (respondent £20–30k with £10k hope value; appellant a c.£1.23m residual). The First-tier Tribunal rejected the appellant’s residual development valuation as speculative and treated the auction price as unrepresentative; it fixed the premium at £30,000. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the FTT’s reasoning or valuation approach.
Vodafone Limited v Gencomp (No 7) Limited & Anor [2022] UKUT 223 (LC) 17 August 2022 This appeal concerned whether Vodafone's 2003 lease was a "subsisting agreement" under the transitional Electronic Communications Code provisions and which party could be ordered to confer replacement code rights after a concurrent 2018 lease to APW. The Tribunal held the 2003 lease was a subsisting agreement, that APW (the occupier under the concurrent lease) could be the conferrer of new code rights and the Tribunal could impose a para 20 agreement on Vodafone and APW, but it could not use para 34 to force a party to confer rights it lacked power to grant. The Tribunal may order a tripartite agreement making rights conferred by one party binding on another.
18 Langdale Road RTM Company Limited v Assethold Limited [2022] UKUT 215 (LC) 9 August 2022 This appeal concerned whether an RTM company's claim notice to acquire the right to manage two long‑lease flats was invalid due to (1) lack of a company officer's signature and (2) omission of one paragraph of the prescribed notes about landlords not being traceable. The Upper Tribunal held there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that the notice be signed and that omission of that single, rarely‑needed paragraph did not invalidate the claim. The FTT decision was set aside and the RTM was held to have acquired the right to manage.
Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hackney [2022] UKUT 210 (LC) 5 August 2022 Cornerstone sought interim Electronic Communications Code rights to carry out a one-day non-intrusive multi-skilled visit and an asbestos survey on the roof of Tradescant House. The London Borough of Hackney did not oppose access in principle but disputed draft agreement terms, principally whether the landlord must approve Cornerstone’s risk assessment and method statement (RAMS). The Tribunal imposed a qualified approval condition allowing the landlord to refuse access until it has approved RAMS (approval not to be unreasonably withheld), and set specific terms on document provision, fees, costs and warranties as summarised in the notes.
Kamlesh Parmar v 127 Ladbroke Grove Limited [2022] UKUT 213 (LC) 5 August 2022 This appeal concerned whether service charges for 2014–2018 were payable where lease-required certified accounts were not issued and whether written notification within the 18‑month limit in section 20B(2) had been given. The Upper Tribunal set aside the First‑tier Tribunal's finding that B(2) had been satisfied, concluded no proper certification had been supplied so no final service charges for 2014–2018 were ascertained or payable, and left intact that interim sums recovered by a county court judgment were not repayable.
Triplerose Limited v Holly Bowles & Ors. [2022] UKUT 214 (LC) 5 August 2022 The freeholder appealed parts of an FTT decision on service charge reasonableness for 2014–2019 at Bridge Court. The UT held the FTT exceeded its jurisdiction by reducing cleaning and management charges beyond the one‑third proportions the leaseholders had expressly challenged, and substituted revised payable sums limited to the challenged proportions. The UT dismissed the appeal on the CCTV point, finding the FTT’s 50% disallowance adequately explained on the evidence.
Rajarajan Narayanasamy Naidu & Anor v Valerie Morton & Ors [2022] UKUT 172 (LC) 4 August 2022 This appeal concerned applications to discharge or modify 1989 restrictive covenants on 52 Beechcroft Manor to allow a three‑storey side extension and ancillary home working. The Tribunal found the covenants were not obsolete and that the business restriction did not prevent ancillary home working, but the building restriction did impede the proposed extension while securing some practical benefit to No. 51 that was not of substantial value. Although ground (aa) could be made out for the building restriction, the Tribunal declined in its discretion to modify or discharge the covenants until planning permission and structural engineering matters were resolved; applicants may reapply after obtaining those consents/details.
Invergarry Court Limited v Christopher Anthony Connolly & Ors [2022] UKUT 209 (LC) 3 August 2022 This appeal concerned an FTT order appointing a manager of a nine-flat block after disputes over unauthorised works, withheld consents and service-charge accounting. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT had erred by treating pre-emptive statements of conditions as unlawful refusals of consent and by failing to identify and apply the statutory threshold ground and expressly consider whether it was "just and convenient" to make a management order. The FTT's order was set aside and the application remitted to a differently constituted FTT for redetermination.
Justin Allen (Valuation Officer) v Tyne & Wear Archives and Museums [2022] UKUT 206 (LC) 3 August 2022 This appeal concerned whether the socio‑economic (public social) value of three Grade II listed museums could be translated into value to a hypothetical local‑authority tenant and so justify positive rateable values. The Tribunal found there is no reliable method or evidence to convert public social value into a rent the hypothetical tenant would pay, rejected the Valuation Officer's socio‑economic adjustments (including shortened receipts and a storage analogy), and confirmed the VTE's nominal rateable values. The appeals therefore failed.
Samantha Cobb & Ors v Nayyer Jahanghir (Deceased) [2022] UKUT 201 (LC) 25 July 2022 This appeal concerned a rent repayment claim by five joint tenants against the deceased landlord for an unlicensed HMO. The First-tier Tribunal excluded the tenants’ further evidence for failure to serve witness statements, treated identity/periods of occupation as fundamental, dismissed the claim and ordered costs against the tenants. The Upper Tribunal held those procedural exclusions and the FTT’s approach were wrong given the landlord’s admissions, set aside the substantive and costs decisions, and remitted the matter to the FTT for rehearing with directions.
Northumberland Mews Limited v Thanet District Council [2022] UKUT 179 (LC) 14 July 2022 This appeal concerned whether a "Part 3 house" under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 can be a whole building, part of a building, or an individual flat, and whether multiple offences could arise in one converted building. The UT held that a Part 3 house may be a whole building, part of it, or an individual flat, and that premises to which a licence relates must constitute a single Part 3 house. The tribunal's decision upholding five separate £10,000 penalties for five unlicensed flats was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.
The Propane Company Limited v Dawn Bunyan (Valuation Officer) [2022] UKUT 237 (LC) 14 July 2022 This appeal concerned whether parts of a non-domestic hereditament at Court Lodge Farm (two stable blocks, a mess room and a hay store) were domestic appurtenances of the adjacent Oast House at the material date (1 April 2010). Applying the factors from Bigwood (nature and function, proximity and general layout), the Tribunal held that Stables 1 and the Mess room were appurtenant to the Oast House and therefore domestic, while Stables 2 and the Hay store were not and remained non-domestic. The Tribunal also found that separate ownership did not automatically preclude appurtenance status in the factual circumstances.
EE Limited & Anor v David Paul Stephenson & Anor [2022] UKUT 180 (LC) 13 July 2022 This appeal concerns the terms of an imposed 10-year lease under the Electronic Communications Code for a mast site at Pendown Farm, including rent, review mechanism, equipment upgrading/sharing, repair/indemnity, and compensation. The Tribunal fixed rent at £750 pa with an RPI review at year 5 and an additional open-market review trigger; it allowed broad upgrading and sharing rights, disallowed restrictive generator/location clauses, preferred a wide indemnity, and deferred most compensation claims except agreed reasonable legal/valuation costs. The imposed lease includes a landlord redevelopment break on/after year 5 and a qualified vacant-possession obligation preserving statutory continuation.
Mill Strand Developments Ltd v James Ernest Tapp & Ors [2022] UKUT 176 (LC) 5 July 2022 The Upper Tribunal considered an application under s.84(1) LPA 1925 to modify a 1972 restrictive covenant preventing non‑agricultural buildings on a 1.24 acre site, where outline and reserved‑matters planning permission for five houses had been implemented. It held the covenant impeded a reasonable use of the land and secured a practical benefit to the owner of No.4 but not of substantial value, so the restriction was capable of modification; modification was approved subject to payment of £25,000 compensation to No.4 and conditions for registering and implementing the permissions. Ground (c) (injury to the persons entitled) was not made out on the facts after compensation. There is a limited right of appeal on a point of law as provided in the order.
EE Limited & Anor v HSBC Bank Plc [2022] UKUT 174 (LC) 4 July 2022 This appeal concerns a paragraph 26 reference under the Electronic Communications Code where EE and another sought interim rights to access HSBC's land for surveys; the parties had agreed interim rights but not compensation or costs. The Tribunal held that HSBC was entitled to its reasonable transaction costs (to be agreed or determined) and summarily assessed HSBC's costs of the reference at £15,000, ordering the claimants to pay with a payment on account of £12,500. The Tribunal explained it will normally order the operator (claimant) to pay a site provider's costs in paragraph 26 references where there is no agreement to the contrary and the claimant's conduct (failure to engage with a draft agreement) supported an adverse costs order.
Andrew Lawson Dell & Anor v 89 Holland Park (Management) Ltd [2022] UKUT 169 (LC) 1 July 2022 This appeal concerned whether a freeholder could recover large litigation costs (from defending third-party claims and from objecting to a neighbour’s planning application) as service charges under lease clauses 4(4)(g)(ii) and 4(4)(l). The Upper Tribunal held those clauses, read in context, do not authorise recovery of the respondent’s costs of the Second and Third Claims or of objecting to the 2018 planning application, and allowed the appeal on construction grounds.
Assethold Limited v William Jonathan and Kirsty Lauren Hoye & Anor [2022] UKUT 173 (LC) 1 July 2022 This appeal concerned lessees' challenges to insurance service charge demands for two flats at 16 St John’s Road, Epping. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was wrong to treat a lease provision requiring particulars of insurance costs as a condition precedent to the validity of insurance rent demands and also set aside the FTT’s factual finding that insurance cover was likely affected by nondisclosure of a shared-access easement. The tribunal substituted decisions that the demands were valid and that the charges were not shown to be unreasonable for that reason, while an unappealed finding of a reasonable annual insurance charge (£856.11) remained binding.
Louise Webb & Anor v Sunley (Findlay Close) Residents Ltd [2022] UKUT 171 (LC) 1 July 2022 This appeal concerned whether service of demands for unpaid service charges for 2016–2020 on the leaseholders had been proved and whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) could decide contested factual issues on the papers. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT unfairly decided a real dispute of fact (including a resident manager’s statement she had not received demands) without oral testing, set aside the FTT’s decision that the charges were payable, and remitted the matter for further directions or a hearing.
Robert Hallett v Alex Parker & Ors [2022] UKUT 165 (LC) 24 June 2022 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal correctly ordered repayment of the full rent received by a landlord who had controlled an unlicensed HMO. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred in principle by treating full repayment as the default where section 46 did not require the maximum order, and substituted a reduced rent repayment order after assessing mitigating and aggravating factors. The FTT's order for full repayment and associated fees was set aside and replaced with £1,000 repayment to each of the three tenants (total £3,000).
Simpson House 3 Limited v Dr Jordan Osserman & Ors [2022] UKUT 164 (LC) 23 June 2022 This appeal concerned the correct approach to quantifying a rent repayment order (RRO) for an unlicensed HMO and whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had failed to take into account pleaded matters of the landlord’s conduct. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT had misdirected itself by treating 100% of rent as the starting point and not addressing material allegations; the UT remade the decision on the unchallenged material and increased each tenant’s award to £7,500 (just under 80% of the relevant rent) and ordered the landlord to pay the appeal hearing fee.
Ballcroft Estates Limited v D Virk (Valuation Officer) [2022] UKUT 153 (LC) 21 June 2022 This appeal concerned the 2017 rateable value of the ground floor and basement of 20-21 High Street, Kidderminster, a former Marks & Spencer building let with upper floors to Pavers on terms materially different from the statutory rating hypothesis. The Tribunal found the whole-building letting had limited assistance and attributed only a nominal value to upper floors, but concluded there was sufficient market evidence of positive rents (after adjustments for inducements) to support a rateable value for the appeal hereditament. The Tribunal applied £11 per sqm to the relevant floors and substituted a rateable value of £17,750 effective 1 April 2017.
Mahendra Maharaj v Liverpool City Council [2022] UKUT 162 (LC) 21 June 2022 This appeal concerns whether the Upper Tribunal should grant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal or review its own decision in proceedings about two fixed penalty notices. The Tribunal refused permission to appeal and declined to review, holding there were no arguable errors of law, no subsequent binding authority, and no compelling reason to revisit its decision; it also rejected that the First-tier Tribunal’s handling of FPN 1 tainted its findings on FPN 2.
Crawley Borough Council v EE Limited and Hutchinson 3G Limited [2022] UKUT 158 (LC) 20 June 2022 This case concerned a landlord’s reference under Schedule 3A of the Electronic Communications Code seeking an order for telecoms operators to remove equipment from a site after the operators’ 2003 lease—protected under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954—expired. The Tribunal held that once the condition in paragraph 37(3)(d) is satisfied the claimant has the right to require removal and the Tribunal must make an order under paragraph 44; it declined to stay the reference and ordered removal by 13 December 2022, leaving compensation to be determined later.
Schwarzschild Ochs Pty Limited v Concerto Properties Limited [2022] UKUT 150 (LC) 20 June 2022 The Tribunal considered an application to modify a 1995 user covenant restricting Nos.208–210 Great Portland Street to shop/showroom or B1 uses, to permit medical (Class E(e)) and office (E(g)) uses with the landlord's consent. It rejected ground (a) obsolescence but granted relief under ground (aa), finding the restriction secured no practical benefit of substantial value in preventing medical use and ordering substitution of clause 3(9) to permit E(e) and E(g) uses subject to prior written landlord consent (not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed). No compensation was awarded.
On Tower UK Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited [2022] UKUT 152 (LC) 17 June 2022 This appeal determined the detailed terms of three 15‑year Code leases between On Tower (operator) and AP Wireless II (site provider), resolving disputes over access, safety management, rights to share/upgrade, liabilities, and rent. The Tribunal held that site providers are not to be made responsible for site safety or exposed to liability by imposing operational control where they do not contractually have control; it refused APW's proposed access portal/notice regime, extensive consent and safety-documentation requirements, and many liability protections, while granting broad sharing/upgrading rights to On Tower and fixing annual rent/consideration. APW's transaction costs were allowed and draft leases were amended accordingly.
Carolyn Taylor & Anor v The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport [2022] UKUT 142 (LC) 27 May 2022 This appeal concerned compensation for two small former golf-course plots compulsorily purchased for the A555 relief road, focusing on whether the land had hope value/development potential in the no‑scheme hypothetical market. The Tribunal found the plots made a strong contribution to the Green Belt, held the permissions and appeals relied on by the claimants were materially different and did not show a realistic prospect of development, accepted the acquiring authority’s small‑plot comparables and awarded nominal market values with statutory basic loss additions.
Jasper Edward Peck Dickinson v William Gordon Adams & Anor [2022] UKUT 127 (LC) 27 May 2022 This appeal concerned Mr Dickinson's application under s.84(1) LPA 1925 to modify a 1957 covenant restricting The Walk to one dwelling so he could implement a 2020 planning permission for two dwellings. The Tribunal held ground (aa) made out because the restriction impeded a reasonable use (the 2020 consent) and secured no practical benefit of substantial value compared with an earlier implementable 2017 single-house consent, and held ground (c) made out because modification would not injure the beneficiaries. The restriction was modified to permit the 2020 permission, subject to undertakings (construction method statement, repair undertaking) and a potential £5,000 security to be provided within three months.
Mahendra Maharaj v Liverpool City Council [2022] UKUT 140 (LC) 20 May 2022 This appeal concerned two financial penalties imposed by Liverpool City Council on landlord Mr Maharaj for breaches of licence conditions 1.2 (annual gas safety certificates) and 5.6 (six‑monthly gas inspections) at 68 Fazakerley Road. The Upper Tribunal quashed the £3,375 penalty for condition 1.2 because the notices’ particulars were defective and the alleged offence was time‑barred. The Tribunal affirmed the £5,625 penalty for condition 5.6, finding the First‑tier Tribunal’s factual conclusions that no reasonable excuse was shown were rationally supportable.
BNPPDS Limited & BNPPDS Limited (Jersey) as trustees for Blackrock UK Property Fund v Andrew Ricketts [2022] UKUT 129 (LC) 18 May 2022 This appeal concerned the rateable value of the Putney Exchange car park and principally whether it should be valued by a full receipts & expenditure (R&E) approach or by the shortened percentage-of-furnishing, fitting and machinery (FMT) method, how to split the divisible balance between tenant and landlord, and how to allow for material changes of circumstance (MCCs). The Tribunal held the car park is in the same mode/category as other multi-storey car parks, rejected the shortened method because rental evidence was insufficient, adopted a full R&E valuation with a 50:50 tenant/landlord split and a 10% reduction for combined MCCs, and fixed rateable value at £211,500.
EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v 100 Nox S.A.R.L [2022] UKUT 130 (LC) 13 May 2022 Claimants EE and Hutchison sought interim rights under paragraph 26 of the Electronic Communications Code to carry out an intrusive rooftop survey at 100 New Oxford Street. The Tribunal refused the interim application because there was no evidence the respondent had received notice, the paragraph 26 notice was mis‑addressed, the claimants had not established who occupied or controlled the roof, and there was no clear specification of the intrusive works proposed. An adjournment to remedy defects was refused and the parties were informed of appeal rights.
Hae Developments Limited v The Croft Ealing & Anor [2022] UKUT 120 (LC) 11 May 2022 This case concerned an application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to discharge 1955 restrictive covenants that limited 26A/26B Park Hill to a single dwelling so the applicant could build a three‑storey building with basement containing eight flats. The Tribunal found the character of the neighbourhood had materially changed since 1955, that the single‑dwelling covenants were therefore obsolete in so far as they prevented the proposed development, and discharged those covenants while retaining the covenants prohibiting business use and preventing nuisance/annoyance. No compensation was awarded.
Maureen Ngozi Obi-Ezekpazu v Avon Ground Rents Limited [2022] UKUT 121 (LC) 10 May 2022 This appeal concerned whether a successor landlord is taken to know an address held by a predecessor and whether a lease clause incorporating s.196 LPA 1925 satisfied the written-notification requirement in s.166(6) CLRA 2002 for an alternative address for ground-rent notices. The UT held there is no general rule imputing a predecessor's factual knowledge to a successor, and that the clause incorporating s.196 did not amount to the written notification required by s.166(6), so the 2013 ground-rent demands (and related £420 administration charges) were ineffective and not payable. The FTT's decision allowing recovery of 30% of costs under s.20C was upheld.
Gholam Hossein Behjat v Crescent Trustees Limited [2022] UKUT 115 (LC) 28 April 2022 This appeal concerned whether decisions made by a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) judge in August–September 2021 were valid when they purported to dispose of parallel county court proceedings. The Upper Tribunal held the 16 August 2021 strike-out (purporting to be a county court order) was made without jurisdiction and that the FTT's 30 September attempt to set that decision aside was procedurally defective; the 30 September order is set aside and the Upper Tribunal remade an order under its rule 51 setting aside the 16 August decision and remitted the matters for proper directions and determination. The case includes practical guidance about clearly identifying the judicial capacity in deployment arrangements where judges sit concurrently for the FTT and county court.
Graham Porteous Bishop v Margaret Jaques [2022] UKUT 108 (LC) 22 April 2022 This appeal concerns Mr Bishop's Land Registry boundary reference which the First-tier Tribunal struck out after he provided redacted disclosure and sought to rely on rule 17 to withhold unredacted material from the respondent. The FTT made an automatic "unless" order and struck the case out for non-compliance, then refused reinstatement; the Upper Tribunal held the FTT had not properly considered the outstanding rule 17 applications or the exercise of discretion and allowed the appeal. The Upper Tribunal reinstated the application on conditions, ordering Mr Bishop to provide unredacted copies of specified material to the respondent within 14 days and to apply to the FTT for further directions.
Stormhill Properties Limited v Richie Roberts (Valuation Officer) [2022] UKUT 109 (LC) 22 April 2022 Stormhill appealed a VTE decision holding that its November 2019 proposal to merge multiple assessments for Alpha House into a single hereditament was invalid under the PICO (2018) amendments. The Upper Tribunal upheld the VTE, finding the appellant had not proved the statutory conditions in s.3ZB (including that the hereditaments ceased to be occupied on the same day and that immediately before that day they formed a single hereditament) and so the late merger proposal fell outside the extended window. The appeal was dismissed.
Paul Graham Cook v John Stove Lambourn & Anor [2022] UKUT 105 (LC) 21 April 2022 This appeal concerns Mr Cook’s application to modify a 1964 covenant restricting use to private dwellings so he could operate holiday lets from his bungalow in Glenway, Newlyn. The Tribunal found the covenant secures practical benefits of substantial value to the objectors (tranquillity, privacy, certainty of residential use) and that modification would cause injury by introducing recurring disturbance and other harms. The application to modify the covenant was refused and the restriction remains.
Christopher Giles Cattermole v Theresa Naomi Jordan & Ors [2022] UKUT 113 (LC) 20 April 2022 This appeal concerned the on-ground location of a boundary shown on a transfer plan between Mr Cattermole's land (title ON325953) and land retained by Miss Jordan and others. The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's finding that the boundary ended at point X because that finding rested on irrelevant or unevidenced considerations (the price paid and an assumed drain) and failed to explain rejection of the experts' agreed position. The UT determined on the available evidence that the correct on-ground line runs from point C to point F (the northern edge of a buttress) and directed the registrar to give effect to Mr Cattermole's application using the experts' plan showing C–F, subject to representations.
Riverside Crem 3 Limited v Sol Unsdorfer & Ors [2022] UKUT 98 (LC) 4 April 2022 Riverside Crem 3 Limited appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision varying a Part II management order so Riverside, as successor landlord, could be charged service-charge liabilities following CREM's assignment. The Upper Tribunal refused permission to raise Riverside’s new argument on appeal that transferees are not bound by existing management orders without fresh Part II procedure, dismissed the appeal, and left the FTT’s variation in force. The Tribunal treated Riverside’s contention as a procedural precondition that could be waived and found no basis to reopen the original proceedings.
Cameron Marshall v Northumberland & Durham Property Trust Limited [2022] UKUT 92 (LC) 28 March 2022 This appeal challenged the First-tier Tribunal's unconditional dispensation from s.20 consultation for replacement boilers at Kelvin Court after the landlord omitted consulting one leaseholder. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT erred by not centring its analysis on the prejudice to the leaseholder and by mis-evaluating key evidence, and it remade the decision to grant dispensation only on conditions limiting recoverable costs and requiring specified reimbursements to the appellant.
G & A Gorrara Limited v Kenilworth Court Block E [2022] UKUT 90 (LC) 22 March 2022 This appeal concerned whether a lease for Flat E3 at Kenilworth Court required lessees to share Maintenance Expenses estate‑wide and whether an RTM company could collect or enforce estate‑wide service charges for other blocks. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First‑tier Tribunal's construction that "the Building" should be read as "the Buildings" so the Fifth Schedule costs are shared by all 52 lessees. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the statutory point, holding that the RTM provisions do not, by themselves, permit an RTM company to enforce or collect estate‑wide obligations owed by lessees of other blocks.
Craig Duncan Collins v Richard Howell [2022] UKUT 72 (LC) 14 March 2022 This appeal concerned an application under s.84(1) Law of Property Act 1925 to modify a 2003 restrictive covenant so the owners could build and use a manège at Newpark Stables. The Tribunal found the covenant still secured practical benefits of substantial value to the neighbouring Higher Norris Farm (preservation of views, privacy, tranquillity and rural character) and that proposed mitigation would not adequately avoid those harms. The application to modify or discharge the covenant was dismissed.
Ian George Johnson v Richmond Housing Partnership Ltd [2022] UKUT 80 (LC) 14 March 2022 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had jurisdiction where Mr Johnson filed Form 6 but attached the wrong prior-year notice of rent increase. The Upper Tribunal held the defect was minor and the application was either substantially compliant with the 2015 Regulations or in a form substantially to the same effect as prescribed, so the FTT did have jurisdiction and the appeal was allowed.
Two Rivers Housing v Jacob Edward Sanders [2022] UKUT 79 (LC) 14 March 2022 This appeal concerns whether a leaseholder, Mr Sanders, must pay half the cost of repairing the roof over a communal stairwell under paragraph 11 of his 1994 lease. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal, holding the wording and plans confined contributory obligations to the stairway and landing themselves (the routes shown), not enclosing walls or the roof, so Mr Sanders need not contribute. The landlord's repairing covenant, fixed additional rents, and coloured plans supported that substantial extra liabilities were not intended.
Philipp Stampfer v Avon Ground Rents Ltd [2022] UKUT 68 (LC) 10 March 2022 This appeal challenged an FTT decision upholding a £30+VAT "Ground Rent Collection Fee" charged by the freeholder. The Upper Tribunal held the fee was a charge for serving the statutory notice (and related work) and that the lease did not permit recovery of that cost under the clause authorising "the collection of rents". The appeal was allowed and the charges in July 2019 and January 2020 were not recoverable.
Pro Investments Limited v London Borough Of Hounslow [2022] UKUT 54 (LC) 1 March 2022 This appeal concerned costs after a compulsory purchase reference where the acquiring authority made a written offer on 10 March 2021 described "without prejudice save as to costs" but excluding certain heads, then withdrew it at the start of the hearing on 12 April 2021. The tribunal held s.4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 applied to the offer insofar as it covered the heads of claim for which the claimant had provided sufficient particulars, ordered costs accordingly (claimant to receive costs up to 10 March; claimant to pay acquiring authority for 11–12 March–April period), and treated the withdrawal at hearing as a "special reason" so that parties bore their own costs from 13 April onwards.
Global 100 Limited v Carlos Jimenez [2022] UKUT 50 (LC) 25 February 2022 This appeal concerned whether a five‑storey former office occupied by about 10–12 property "guardians" under Temporary Licence Agreements was an HMO under s.254(2) Housing Act 2004, focusing on whether the living accommodation's "only use" was residential. The First‑tier Tribunal held it was an unlicensed HMO and made rent repayment orders; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders. The UT held that contractual licence terms requiring guardian duties did not create a separate non‑residential use of the living accommodation.
Jonathan Brett & Anor v Harlow Court Limited [2022] UKUT 52 (LC) 23 February 2022 This appeal concerned whether interim service-charge demands (notably a March 2020 on-account demand) were unreasonable given alleged historic credits and accounting irregularities. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s pragmatic assessment, slightly reducing the March 2020 demand to £712.55 but finding the demand reasonable overall, and dismissed the appellants’ challenge. The UT also held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order repayment of any overpaid sums, which must be reclaimed in the County Court.
Vectis Property Company Limited v Cambrai Court Management Company Limited [2022] UKUT 42 (LC) 22 February 2022 This Upper Tribunal appeal concerned the enfranchisement price for a nine-flat block where the sole dispute was development (hope) value for two proposed roof flats. The Tribunal held the freeholder did not need an express reservation to develop retained roof/airspace and that the management company's repair covenant extended to the Building as it exists from time to time, so construction would not be legally barred; the landlord's appeal was allowed and the respondent's cross-appeal permissions were refused.
FC Brown Steel Equipment Ltd v Karl Hopkins [2022] UKUT 51 (LC) 21 February 2022 This appeal considered whether two industrial properties separated by a public road but linked by an enclosed conveyor bridge constituted a single hereditament for non‑domestic rating and what split‑site allowance should apply. The Tribunal held the buildings and bridge satisfied the cartographic/visual geographical test and allowed the ratepayer's merger proposal. It fixed the merged rateable value at £1,000,000 from 2 September 2013 with a 7.5% split‑site end allowance. The Valuation Officer's cross‑appeal against merger was dismissed.
Ricardo Pinto v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council [2022] UKUT 47 (LC) 21 February 2022 This appeal challenged a financial penalty for operating an unlicensed HMO and whether the six‑month limitation in Schedule 13A(2) began when the authority had "sufficient evidence". The Upper Tribunal held that "sufficient evidence" means evidence sufficient to prove the offence to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) and upheld the First‑tier Tribunal's factual finding that the council only obtained such evidence in late June 2020, so the notice of intent served 1 December 2020 was in time. The FTT's reduction of the penalty to £2,500 was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Lystra Dorval v Tendring District Council [2022] UKUT 44 (LC) 18 February 2022 This appeal concerned civil penalties imposed on Mrs Dorval for multiple breaches of HMO Regulations at two properties. The Upper Tribunal held the First-tier Tribunal’s penalty determinations were set aside because the FTT gave no adequate reasoning for its harm and culpability assessments, and remitted the quantum of penalty for rehearing before a different FTT panel; the FTT findings of liability were not challenged and remain intact.
Steven John Newman v Joanna Lucille Birch-Phaure [2022] UKUT 36 (LC) 11 February 2022 This appeal concerned FTT orders (C(1) orders under s.20C(1)) limiting the landlord's recovery of his FTT legal costs from two tenants after the landlord succeeded on service-charge issues. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT acted unfairly by deciding those C(1) applications and giving adverse reasons without inviting or allowing the landlord to make submissions, and set the two C(1) orders aside. The UT invited the tenants to renew any C(1) applications to the FTT within 28 days.
Samita Budhathoki & Ors v The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport [2022] UKUT 35 (LC) 10 February 2022 This appeal concerned compensation for four small plots compulsorily purchased for the A555 relief road, focusing on valuation at the statutory valuation date excluding scheme effect and whether "hope value" for development should be reflected. The tribunal rejected the reliability of the purchase prices (viewing them as likely land‑banking) but accepted the expert's low existing‑use valuations, added a 20% allowance for residual hope value and 7.5% basic loss, and awarded modest sums (Budhathokis £1,935; each Simumba and Yates £645).
SSE Plc v Jo Moore (Valuation Officer) [2023] UKUT 24 (LC) 3 February 2022 This appeal concerned whether long-term mothballing of Keadby Power Station amounted to a material change of circumstances altering its mode or category of occupation (MCO) for rating on the Material Day (11 June 2013). The Tribunal held the MCO did not change: the hereditament remained a power station in rateable occupation despite being unable to generate electricity while mothballed, so the 2010 list rateable value of £5,340,000 was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.
Gurmail Gill & Anor v The Royal Borough of Greenwich [2022] UKUT 26 (LC) 1 February 2022 This appeal concerned whether two brothers who jointly owned a house in multiple occupation were each a "person having control" for purposes of ss.72/263 Housing Act 2004 and whether separate financial penalties could be imposed on each. The UT held that both brothers, as joint landlords entitled to receive the rack-rent, were persons having control and that separate £10,000 penalties could lawfully be imposed on each. The appeal was dismissed but the UT cautioned that penalty levels should reflect each joint landlord's individual culpability.
Martyn John Garner & Anor. v Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport [2022] UKUT 28 (LC) 1 February 2022 This case concerned compensation after Stockport Council's compulsory acquisition of parts of the Garners' land for the A6‑MARR, focussing on valuation (including any "hope value"), severance/injurious affection and disturbance. The Tribunal held that, in a no‑scheme world, the grazing land made a strong contribution to Green Belt purposes so short‑term development prospects were remote but there remained a slender prospect justifying a modest uplift for hope value; detailed values were assessed for the land taken, retained land, car park, mast and disturbance. Total compensation awarded was £584,971. Costs of the reference were reserved and a right of appeal was preserved.
Jagtar Singh Aytan & Ors v Theo Moore & Ors [2022] UKUT 27 (LC) 31 January 2022 This appeal concerned two points from First-tier Tribunal rent-repayment orders: whether the landlords had a "reasonable excuse" for managing an unlicensed HMO and the correct approach to quantifying a rent-repayment order (RRO). The Upper Tribunal rejected the landlords' reasonable-excuse defence, holding reliance on an agent rarely suffices absent contractual obligation and evidence, and found the FTT erred in treating the full rent as the presumptive award. The UT substituted an RRO for 85% of the rent (£26,520), to be divided equally between the tenants; the appeal on reasonable excuse failed.
Brickfield Properties Limited v Soil Miah Ullah & Ors [2022] UKUT 25 (LC) 26 January 2022 This appeal concerned valuation of an existing short leasehold interest in a flat where two near-contemporaneous sales produced widely different prices (£112,000 private treaty; £175,000 auction). The First-tier Tribunal preferred the auction sale, but the Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred in treating the opaque auction as decisive, instead preferring the private treaty sale adjusted for tenant's improvements and statutory (Act-rights) adjustments and checked against established relativity graphs. The UT substituted a valuation of the existing lease at £85,982 and a premium of £153,498.
EE Limited & Anor v Affinity Water Limited [2022] UKUT 8 (LC) 17 January 2022 This appeal concerned the Tribunal’s determination of the financial terms for a new Electronic Communications Code agreement between EE/Hutchison and Affinity Water for occupation of a communications compound and use of a water tower under paragraph 34(6) (Part 5). The Tribunal held that paragraph 24 valuation assumptions apply and, for the notional market transaction, the site should be treated as vacant; applying a three-stage valuation approach and adjustments (including a 10% uplift for an annual break) it fixed the annual consideration at £3,300 and awarded £7,500 for the respondent’s professional costs. An order was made terminating the subsisting agreement and directing entry into the new agreement on those financial terms.
Katarzyna Kaszowska & Ors v Dominic White [2022] UKUT 11 (LC) 14 January 2022 This appeal concerned whether a rent repayment order (RRO) under Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 can be made against a company director who was not the landlord, and whether the director had committed a relevant housing offence. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had held it lacked jurisdiction to make an RRO against Mr White and found in any event that he had a reasonable excuse; the Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT's conclusion that Chapter 4 jurisdiction is limited to landlords and dismissed the appeal, so it did not decide the reasonable-excuse finding.
Kathleen Victoria Chow & Anor v Nathan Skipper & Anor [2022] UKUT 5 (LC) 10 January 2022 This appeal concerns an Upper Tribunal challenge to a First-tier Tribunal decision ordering landlords to repay rent after letting a flat in a selective licensing area without a valid licence. The FTT found the landlords knew a licence was required, failed to renew it for nearly a year, rejected their "reasonable excuse" defence and made a rent repayment order for £11,012 covering 319 days. The landlords appealed the FTT decision to the Upper Tribunal.
Flight Centre (UK) Limited v A Ricketts (Valuation Officer) [2021] UKUT 315 (LC) 31 December 2021 This appeal concerned the correct Zone A value for a ground-floor retail unit at 42 Upper Street at the antecedent valuation date (1 April 2015). The Upper Tribunal found the northern end of the parade was weaker than the southern, assessed the appropriate Zone A at £1,800/m2 (down from parties' figures), applied a 5% shape allowance and an air‑conditioning adjustment, and revised the rateable value to £104,600. No costs were awarded.
King & Ors v Residential Marine Limited [2021] UKUT 309 (LC) 21 December 2021 This appeal concerned how Residential Marine Ltd could lawfully charge long-stay mobile home residents at Port Werburgh Marina for electricity resold from a shared British Gas supply. The Tribunal held that the respondent could not pass on the climate change levy to these domestic residents and that the FTT had erred in how it determined the unit rate; a reasonable blended average reflecting actual weekday/weekend usage proportions should be used and the matter of quantification was remitted to the FTT. The FTT was also criticised for accepting unsupported factual assertions and some arithmetic errors; the respondent was ordered to produce monthly British Gas bills and the parties to seek further FTT directions if they cannot agree.
ASP Independent Living Limited v Jean Barbara Godfrey [2021] UKUT 313 (LC) 14 December 2021 This appeal to the Upper Tribunal challenged parts of a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision upholding certain warden and gardening service charges for a leasehold flat at The Gate House. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal limited to two warden charges and one gardening charge and proceeded on written representations. The notes record that service charges are payable only to the extent they are reasonably incurred and that lessees challenging reasonableness must adduce some evidence; consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 apply where qualifying works or long-term agreements exceed statutory thresholds.
Five Oaks Land Limited v London Borough of Redbridge [2021] UKUT 304 (LC) 2 December 2021 This case concerned whether Five Oaks Land Ltd (FOLL) had "referred" a compulsory purchase compensation claim to the Upper Tribunal within the six‑year limitation period after London Borough of Redbridge's acquisition. The Tribunal held that a consolidated statement of case filed on 30 March 2021 was sufficient to refer FOLL's claim in time, waived non‑compliance with Rule 28(1) under rule 7(2), and accepted a later T371 as the claimants' notice of reference rather than striking the claim out. Provisional costs directions were given.
Michael Wynne v Rodger Yates & Anor [2021] UKUT 278 (LC) 12 November 2021 This appeal concerned whether service charges for major works were reasonably incurred and payable, and whether the landlord should have been granted a dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements so as to recover charges above the £250 threshold. The tribunal recorded legal propositions about evidential burdens: tenants must produce some evidence of unreasonableness or prejudice to resist charges or a dispensation, and dispensation will ordinarily be granted unless the tenant demonstrates relevant prejudice. The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision and indicated it would substitute its own decision.
Anna Kyriacou v Vanessa Linden [2021] UKUT 288 (LC) 10 November 2021 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) should have determined alleged breaches of lease covenants and the correctness of a costs order. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was wrong to refuse determination on insurance breaches and substituted findings that the landlord breached the insurance covenant in specified periods (loss-of-rent cover missing 1 Nov–2 Dec 2019; policy not in joint names 2 Dec 2019–19 Feb 2020). The Upper Tribunal also set aside the FTT's costs order and remade it, ordering the claimant to pay a reduced contribution of £10,000.
Andrew Ricketts (Valuation Officer) v Cyxtera Technology UK Limited [2021] UKUT 265 (LC) 28 October 2021 This appeal concerned whether "white space" in a Slough data centre formed part of the hereditament for rating purposes and whether building 631 was included on 13 March 2013. The tribunal held that white space which was fitted out and actively operated by the data-centre proprietor (power, cooling, security, maintenance) was capable of beneficial occupation and thus part of the hereditament on the contested 2010 dates, so the VOA's appeal succeeded for those dates. The VOA conceded 631 was not part of the hereditament on 13 March 2013 and the tribunal refused to substitute a later date, so the VOA failed on that limb.
Charles Christian Bedford v Paragon Asra Housing Limited [2021] UKUT 266 (LC) 28 October 2021 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal should have struck out a landlord's s.168 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 application as an abuse of process because the landlord had allegedly waived the right to forfeit by accepting rent with knowledge of subletting. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the FTT's refusal to strike out and its finding that the tenant had sublet, and held that pursuing a s.168 determination is not necessarily abusive merely because forfeiture may be barred. Paragon remains free to serve a forfeiture notice; waiver can be raised later as a defence in forfeiture proceedings.
Hastings Borough Council v Linda Turner [2021] UKUT 258 (LC) 21 October 2021 This appeal concerns Hastings Borough Council’s grant of an HMO licence for 10 Warrior Gardens and the FTT’s decision (on paper) allowing resident objector Ms Turner’s challenge to the fitness of the proposed licence holders and the management arrangements. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred in law by treating the authority as bearing an evidential burden and by failing to give appropriate respect to the Council’s decision on re‑hearing, and on the material before it concluded the three freeholders and Indigo Properties UK Ltd are fit and proper and the management arrangements are satisfactory. The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT’s decision and indicated the licence should be confirmed rather than remitted.
Llangewydd Court Ground Rent Estate v James Anthony Ralph & Anor [2021] UKUT 251 (LC) 14 October 2021 This appeal challenged the deferment rate and regional uplift applied by the LVT in calculating the premium for a tenant's freehold purchase under leasehold enfranchisement. The Upper Tribunal held the appellant had not produced compelling expert evidence to displace the established Sportelli deferment-rate guidance, so the LVT's figure (close to the tenant's valuer's figure) was upheld and the appeal dismissed. One ground (current ground rent figure) was withdrawn at hearing.
Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v St Martins Property Investments Limited & Anor [2021] UKUT 262 (LC) 8 October 2021 This was a paragraph 26 interim Code reference by Cornerstone seeking rights to carry out multi-operator site visits (MSVs) and intrusive "investigative works" at 1 London Bridge. The Tribunal dismissed the freeholder from the claim as unnecessary, permitted non-intrusive MSVs on limited terms (six months with a two-month active access window) but refused intrusive or destructive investigative works at this stage, and made costs orders against the claimant.
George Mellor & Ors v The Secretary of State for Transport [2021] UKUT 212 (LC) 6 September 2021 This case concerned whether the claimants were "owner-occupiers" of an agricultural unit for the purposes of s.168(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so as to support a statutory blight notice requiring purchase of the whole unit. The Tribunal held that none of the claimants met both the occupation and ownership requirements for the relevant periods: occupation by the company did not equate to personal occupation by its directors, and the partnership route under s.164 was not available. The blight notice was therefore invalid and the Secretary of State’s objection was upheld.
Pro Investments Limited v London Borough of Hounslow [2021] UKUT 201 (LC) 6 September 2021 This appeal concerned valuation and compensation for land (Capital Court) taken under Hounslow's Lionel Road South CPO, with the Tribunal required to fix open market value on the statutory no-scheme assumption and decide recoverable CAAD-related and early redemption costs. The Tribunal applied a residual appraisal (checked against comparables), concluded a market value of £10,250,000 at 1 September 2016, and awarded total compensation of £11,245,413 including specified CAAD and finance costs. The decision was final on all matters except the costs of the reference.
Bozidar Zabavnik v The Commissioners for HMRC [2021] UKUT 213 (LC) 20 August 2021 This appeal concerned the open-market Inheritance Tax valuations (as at 4 December 2014) of three freehold houses on Tunis Road, London, following HMRC determinations. The First-tier Tribunal preferred the VOA expert's comparative sales approach over the appellant's rent/income-based figures, with limited adjustments, and the Upper Tribunal set values of No.29 £830,000; No.31 £900,000; and No.76 £950,000. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's income-based method and applied adjustments for time, size, condition/refurbishment and tenancy.
EE Limited and Hutchinson 3G UK Limited v David Paul Stephenson & Anor [2021] UKUT 167 (LC) 14 July 2021 This appeal concerned two preliminary questions under Part 5 of the Electronic Communications Code: whether an operator must plead a site-specific need when applying (after expiry of a subsisting agreement) for termination of that agreement and entry into a new Code-compliant agreement, and whether the operator may seek alternative types of relief not specified in the prior OFCOM-prescribed para 33 notice. The Tribunal held an operator need not plead site-specific justification for a new agreement where a subsisting agreement has expired; general business and technical needs together with the fact the agreement is out of step with the Code can justify the application. The Tribunal also held the operator could not pursue alternative orders that were not identified in the prior para 33 notice and struck out the claimant’s broad alternative plea.
Adrian Suchorski and Gosia Suchorski & Ors v Richard Norton [2021] UKUT 166 (LC) 8 July 2021 Leaseholders applied to remove Richard Norton as a tribunal-appointed manager of a block and to obtain an account of monies he received. Norton failed to comply with FTT directions and largely failed to engage with proceedings. The Upper Tribunal ordered Norton personally to repay all monies received as manager between 1 November 2017 and 29 August 2019 unless he can lawfully establish accountable expenditure, and directed an inquiry allowing leaseholders to give evidence of payments.
Marek And Kahori Kowalek v Hassanein Limited [2021] UKUT 143 (LC) 18 June 2021 This appeal concerned an FTT rent repayment order after a landlord let a flat without a required selective licence. The Upper Tribunal held that only sums both paid during the offending period and paid in respect of that period are recoverable, excluded a post-licence £2,000 payment, ruled that a held tenancy deposit is not "rent" while retained as a deposit, and confirmed tenant arrears are relevant conduct under s.44(4)(a) for reducing an order. The FTT's repayment order was upheld in substance and the appeal dismissed.
EE Limited and Hutchinson 3G UK Limited v London Underground Limited [2021] UKUT 128 (LC) 1 June 2021 EE and H3G sought interim Code rights to carry out a multi-skilled visit (MSV) to survey a London Underground roof after losing a nearby site. The Tribunal held that an interim MSV order under paragraph 26 may be made on a "good arguable case" that paragraph 21 conditions are met and found the claimants had shown such a case. London Underground's security objections were held to be remote/theoretical and capable of being addressed by conditions (vetting, supervision, limited visits), so interim access was granted subject to agreed security terms; costs reserved.
Smoke Club Limited & Ors v Network Rail Infrastructure [2021] UKUT 78 (LC) 25 May 2021 The Tribunal had earlier held that the claimants held a periodic tenancy of Arch 11 with protection under the 1954 Act. The present decision concerns costs: the claimants were partly successful and were awarded 50% of their recoverable costs, with the global costs figure reduced to £400,000 and a payment on account of £120,000 ordered. Interest on the awarded costs was fixed at 2% above base rate up to the Order and 3% above thereafter. Remaining costs are to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
Zyrieda Denning & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2021] UKUT 76 (LC) 8 April 2021 This appeal concerns whether a capitalised figure derived by the profits method (the FMOP net of rent, described as "trading potential") forms part of the market value of two leasehold interests in care homes or instead represents business goodwill separate from the leaseholds. Experts agreed the numerical FMOP/FM T, year's purchase and resultant leasehold values but disagreed on legal characterisation: one expert treated the premium as property-related trading potential included in the leasehold value; the other treated it as business goodwill. The Tribunal has the agreed valuations on record but must resolve whether those amounts legally constitute property value or goodwill for the tax appeals.
Robert Jack Craddock & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] UKUT 2 (LC) 1 April 2021 This appeal concerned a blight notice served by the freehold owners of the Old Rectory against the Secretary of State for Transport under HS2 Phase 2a. The Tribunal held the Secretary of State’s counter‑notice (s.151(4)(b)) was not rendered invalid by an asterisked qualification but failed because the respondent had not shown a bona fide, practicable intention at the material date (20 Sept 2019) not to acquire the plots. The Tribunal declared the blight notice valid, deemed the Secretary of State authorised to compulsorily acquire the property, and treated notice to treat as served 1 April 2021.
Land and Estate Developments UK Limited v Nottingham City Council [2021] UKUT 25 (LC) 24 March 2021 This case concerned whether a notice of reference emailed to the Upper Tribunal on 30 June 2020 was within the six‑year limitation period following vesting on 1 July 2014. The Tribunal held time ran from 1 July 2014 to midnight on 30 June 2020, and that Rule 12(1)'s 5pm office‑closing requirement could not truncate the statutory period. The emailed notice was therefore received in time and the acquiring authority's limitation defence on the preliminary issue was dismissed; the substantive claim proceeds.
House of Mayfair Limited v Timothy Frank Aitchison & Ors [2021] UKUT 73 (LC) 23 March 2021 This appeal concerned the premium payable on the collective enfranchisement of 22 Underhill Road, specifically whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in attributing only £2,000 for a speculative roof-extension "development hope" and in refusing a two-stage valuation or reliance on paragraph 5 of Schedule 6. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s factual finding that the prospect of development was very small, rejected the appellant’s legal arguments about paragraph 5 and a two-stage hypothetical, and dismissed the appeal, leaving the premium at £22,000.
Louise Irvine v Dr Anthony Metcalfe & Ors [2021] UKUT 60 (LC) 17 March 2021 This appeal challenged a First-tier Tribunal rent repayment order (RRO) of £45,043.88 imposed on the freeholder, Mrs Irvine, for managing an unlicensed HMO that had been let to an intermediate tenant (Uptown) who sub‑let to occupiers. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT's findings that Mrs Irvine retained sufficient control/management to commit the offence and so could be liable as a "landlord" for RRO purposes, and rejected arguments about the 12‑month calculation and procedural reopening of an occupancy-based appeal. The FTT's order was therefore dismissed and the RRO stands.
Heath Colin Alridge & Ors v London Southend Airport Company Limited [2021] UKUT 8 (LC) 11 March 2021 This case concerned 190 homeowners claiming property devaluation under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 after a 2012 runway extension at London Southend Airport increased aircraft noise; ten representative lead properties were tried. The Tribunal found that most lead properties suffered noise-related depreciation by the first claim day (8 March 2013), rejected the claimant expert's repeat‑sales "growth foregone" quantification as overstating loss, rejected a separate uplift for future intensification, and assessed specific compensation amounts for the ten lead properties.
Fleur Marie Alberti v Cadogan Holdings Limited [2021] UKUT 85 (LC) 9 March 2021 This appeal concerned how to value a leasehold reversion under s 9(1A)(d) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 when the tenant has carried out improvements. The Tribunal held that the statute requires treating the tenant's improvements as if never made on the valuation date, and to re-write the property's history so that inevitable consequences of that counterfactual (including planning status and any resulting unlawfulness of occupation as a single house) are assumed. The preliminary issue was decided for Mrs Alberti and that assumption will be applied when fixing the freehold price.
Golf Café Bars Limited v West Yorkshire Combined Authority & Anor [2021] UKUT 48 (LC) 9 March 2021 This appeal concerned costs following a compulsory purchase compensation reference decided on written representations. The Tribunal held that the usual no-costs rule for written representations does not generally apply to compulsory purchase compensation claims and ordered the acquiring authority to repay the claimant's tribunal fees and an allowance for the claimant's time. The Tribunal awarded two-thirds of the claimed hours (120) at £19/hour (£2,280) plus tribunal fees of £3,218.84, totaling £5,498.84.
JJ Wilson (Ipswich) Ltd v Joanne Moore (Valuation Officer) [2021] UKUT 44 (LC) 5 March 2021 This appeal concerned whether a second proposal to alter the rating list was invalid because it was made on the same ground as an earlier proposal. The Upper Tribunal found both proposals arose from the same ground and were materially the same, so the second was prohibited and invalid under regulation 4(3)(b)(i); the appeal was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Valuation Officer was not estopped from relying on invalidity despite not having served an invalidity notice.
Rosa Ficcara & Ors v Hannah James [2021] UKUT 38 (LC) 20 February 2021 This appeal concerned whether a tenant may obtain separate rent repayment orders for multiple qualifying offences by a landlord under Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The First-tier Tribunal had found three offences but made one rent repayment order per tenant capped at 12 months' rent; the Upper Tribunal upheld that approach and dismissed the tenants' appeal (permission to cross‑appeal refused).
Michelle Dawn Edith Ball v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council [2021] UKUT 42 (LC) 18 February 2021 This appeal concerned a rent repayment order made under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 after the appellant pleaded guilty to operating an unlicensed HMO; the First-tier Tribunal ordered repayment of £13,293.27 (the full amount of universal credit received). The Upper Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments that the FTT misapplied ss 44–46 or failed to take into account mitigation such as running losses, utilities, loan interest, or local authority referrals. The UT upheld the FTT's decision that the circumstances were not "exceptional" and dismissed the appeal.
Stewart Christopher Chivers & Anor v St Helens Borough Council [2020] UKUT 303 (LC) 11 February 2021 This appeal concerned a compulsory purchase compensation reference by Mr Stewart Chivers and Prestige Motors Direct Ltd, raising (1) a claim for compensation for a prospective surrender sum said to be payable for a sub‑let car showroom on Plot D and (2) recoverable pre‑reference professional costs. The Tribunal dismissed the lease‑breakage claim, finding the claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that a substantial surrender payment would be required, and made specified awards (reduced in parts for proportionality) for pre‑reference fees and reference costs. Directions were given for adjustment for advance payments and for parties to agree or seek further directions on costs.
Norma Hortense Beharie v Swift Advances Plc [2021] UKUT 27 (LC) 9 February 2021 This appeal concerns a challenge by Ms Beharie to First-tier Tribunal (FTT) orders of 14 August 2020 dealing with costs after a substantive Land Registry reference. The FTT set aside an earlier referral to a costs judge and a default costs certificate, decided the matter required summary assessment and assessed costs at £43,437.41, concluding Ms Beharie had not served compliant points of dispute or otherwise engaged with the costs process. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerns whether her letters amounted to valid points of dispute and whether she was given an opportunity to make representations.
Daniel James Adams v Thomas James Cecil Jones [2021] UKUT 9 (LC) 18 January 2021 This appeal concerned an application under Part IV of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 in which the applicant had named an individual rather than the company that owned the holding. The Upper Tribunal held that misnaming the landlord in the initial application was not fatal, that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) could treat the error as an irregularity and substitute the correct company respondent under its procedural powers, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also held that permission is not required to appeal from the ALT to the Upper Tribunal on points of law.
Patricia Ashford v Mill Court Walton Limited [2021] UKUT 11 (LC) 15 January 2021 This appeal concerned whether the freeholder acquiring the freehold on enfranchisement could also acquire a parking easement over a shared courtyard used for parking by tenants. The Upper Tribunal held there was no issue estoppel from an earlier service-charge decision and that the leases of Flats 2–4 did not grant an easement to park, so the freeholder could not acquire such an easement. The transfer of the freehold was to proceed without an express right to park, with directions to omit parking rights from the draft transfer.
Leech Homes Ltd v Northumberland County Council [2020] UKUT 328 (LC) 26 November 2020 This appeal concerned whether the Upper Tribunal has power to order costs in an appeal under section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 challenging a negative certificate; the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal held that Rule 10(6)(a) should be given a broad interpretation so that appeals under s.17 fall within "proceedings for compensation for compulsory purchase" and therefore it has jurisdiction to award costs. It also held that exercising that costs jurisdiction does not conflict with s.17(10), although an appellant awarded costs cannot also recover the same costs again as compensation under s.17(10). The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed; the appellant's expenses may still be considered under s.17(10) for compensation purposes.
Dreamland Leisure Cinema Limited & Anor v Thanet District Council [2020] UKUT 305 (LC) 17 November 2020 This appeal concerned a claim for loan interest under a compulsory purchase compensation award, based on an alleged £475,000 loan from Pavenham to Dreamland in 2013. The Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence of any oral loan agreement imposing an interest liability and therefore dismissed the loan interest claim. Because that claim failed, the Tribunal did not determine mitigation as a necessary issue. Other heads of claim were agreed or settled.
Re a notice of reference by Lichfield District Council [2020] UKUT 304 (LC) 12 November 2020 This case fixed compensation for compulsory acquisition of 346 sq m of grassland at Grange Lane, Lichfield, where the owner was unknown. The Tribunal accepted legal advice and a fresh valuation concluding the adjoining landowner likely had strong adverse possession/prescriptive rights, eliminating any ransom or marriage value, and assessed open market value at £12 per sq m, ordering £4,150 to be paid into court. The decision also recorded potential additional claims for professional fees and a basic loss payment, which were not ordered but may be claimed in writing within six years.
On Tower UK Limited v JH & FW Green Limited [2020] UKUT 348 (LC) 29 October 2020 This appeal concerned renewal of a mast-site lease under the Electronic Communications Code after the 1999 lease expired, with dispute limited to the scope of equipment/upgrade/share rights and the proper consideration. The Tribunal found the public benefit outweighed any compensable prejudice and imposed unrestricted rights to install, upgrade and share electronic communications apparatus, fixing the annual consideration at £1,200 and awarding the respondent certain legal costs.
Pepper (UK) Limited v Burnley Borough Council [2020] UKUT 295 (LC) 27 October 2020 This appeal concerned whether the claimant made a valid reference under section 15(1) and whether the tribunal could direct compensation to be paid to the claimant in part satisfaction of an interested party’s mortgage under section 15(2). The tribunal held the reference was valid and awarded £20,000 plus statutory interest from the valuation date to be paid to the claimant in part satisfaction of the mortgage. The tribunal declined to award a 7.5% basic loss payment because no written claim for it had been made to the acquiring authority. The decision is final on all matters except costs.
Andrew McEvoy & Anor v Warwickshire County Council [2020] UKUT 276 (LC) 26 October 2020 The McEvoys served a blight notice for land said to be shown on the alignment of a proposed A5 bypass in documents submitted in the Local Plan Examination. The Tribunal held the October 2017 Strategic Transport Assessment and related examination documents were local development/development plan documents identifying the land for relevant public functions under paragraph 1A of Schedule 13, so the Council's s.151(4)(a) objection failed and the land was blighted land; further procedure was directed on remaining grounds.
LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL v (1) STEWART JAMES BUCKINGHAM (2) KIERAN DURCAN 14 July 2020 This case concerns Lincolnshire County Council's application under s.84(1)(a) of the Law of Property Act 1925 to discharge a 1911 restrictive covenant limiting use of the Mary Knox Centre land to a school. The Tribunal found both objectors (owners of 40 and 83 Smith Street) were not entitled to object and discharged the covenant because the neighbourhood and the character of the property had so changed that use as a school is no longer practicable. The order discharging the covenant was made.
Nigel Briant v Hugo Baldacchino [2020] UKUT 206 (LC) 10 July 2020 This case concerns an application by Nigel Briant to modify a 1987 restrictive covenant affecting Smugglers Hyde to permit development pursuant to certain planning permissions (various configurations of one or two houses). The Tribunal considered which specific combinations of permissions were properly advanced and assessed Mr Briant’s “indicative” internal layout evidence, finding that proposed reconfiguration of the original cottage was unrealistic and unpersuasive. The applicant did not pursue some of the originally pleaded legal grounds at hearing; the application was opposed by the neighbour, Mr Baldacchino.
Mahbobeh Eshraghi & Ors v 7/9 Avenue Road (London House) Ltd [2020] UKUT 208 (LC) 2 July 2020 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine whether litigation and other costs met from a service‑charge reserve or included in the service‑charge accounts for 2016–17 were recoverable as service charges, and whether particular legal, accountancy and managing‑agent fees were properly chargeable. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT did have jurisdiction, allowed recovery of High Court litigation costs only up to and including 26 October 2016, upheld recovery of costs relating to Flats 48 and 50 (subject to third‑party credits), and ordered specified reductions/omissions in accountancy and management fees. Directions were given for further s20C submissions and possible remittal for quantification.
AA Homes & Housing Ltd & Anor v London Borough of Croydon [2020] UKUT 181 (LC) 8 June 2020 This appeal concerned civil penalties imposed for failing to licence Flat 39 in a 54‑flat block; the First‑tier Tribunal reduced one penalty but otherwise upheld fines based largely on serious fire‑safety failings in the building. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred in treating building‑wide fire safety defects as harm caused by the specific offence of failing to licence Flat 39, allowed the appeal in part, and remitted the matter for re‑hearing to reassess penalties (and to give fuller reasons for the second appellant) while leaving findings of high culpability open on the existing material.
Chris Wall & Anor v Valuation Tribunal for England [2020] UKUT 166 (LC) 26 May 2020 This appeal concerned whether the Upper Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Valuation Tribunal for England's refusal to undertake a review of a 25 July 2012 decision fixing the rateable value of Induna stables, and whether a 7 August 2012 emailed request for review had been made in time. The Tribunal held there is no right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a VTE decision refusing to undertake a review and dismissed the appeal, but found the 7 August 2012 email was a timely review application that appears never to have been determined and recommended the VTE determine it.
Charles James Braithwaite v London Borough of Enfield Council [2020] UKUT 137 (LC) 1 May 2020 This appeal concerns the tribunal's determination of compensation payable to Mr Braithwaite following compulsory acquisition by the London Borough of Enfield. The tribunal assessed compensation as market value less outstanding debt, plus a basic loss payment equal to 7.5% of market value, disturbance and travel items, and interest from the vesting date, totalling £644,646.37. The tribunal also ordered the acquiring authority to pay the Tribunal's determination fee (£12,892.92) and reimburse the claimant's application fee (£275).
Stock Auto Breakers Ltd v Chris Sykes (Valuation Officer) [2020] UKUT 52 (LC) 6 March 2020 This appeal concerned the rateable value of a 1,779.6 m2 loose‑surfaced fenced yard in Rawreth used for vehicle storage/breaking, and whether a lease dated 27 March 2017 should determine the valuation. The Upper Tribunal gave the 2017 letting some weight but did not treat it as dispositive, admitted additional evidence notwithstanding VTE regulation 17A, and fixed the rateable value at £20,000 effective 1 April 2017 (yard at £11.00/m plus £600 for containers). The appeal was refused and no order as to costs was made.
Avison Young Ltd v David Jackson (VO) [2020] UKUT 58 (LC) 25 February 2020 This appeal concerned whether regulation 38(7) of the VTE Regulations permits the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE) to limit an alteration to the rating list to the specific period during which temporary works rendered a hereditament incapable of beneficial occupation. The UT upheld the VTE’s decision that the regulation is broad enough to allow limiting a nil valuation to the dates the premises were unoccupiable (1 Sept 2014–23 Jan 2015) and dismissed the appeal.
Richie Roberts (Valuation Officer) v Backhouse Jones Limited [2020] UKUT 38 (LC) 10 February 2020 This appeal addressed whether two first‑floor office suites occupied by the same ratepayer but separated by a landlord‑controlled 1.32m fire‑escape corridor are "contiguous" under s.64 as amended by the 2018 Act, so as to form a single hereditament. The Tribunal held that the 2018 "space proviso" applies only to spaces within a common enclosing structure (walls/ceilings) and does not treat a corridor between separate walls as creating contiguity. The Valuation Officer's decision to merge the entries was overturned and the separate entries reinstated.
Buzz Group Limited v Kay Salmon (Valuation Officer) [2020] UKUT 116 (LC) 17 January 2020 This appeal concerned the rateable value of a bingo club that had been "right‑sized" (floor area reduced) during the list. Buzz Group argued for a pro‑rata reduction in rateable value to reflect the smaller floor, while the Valuation Officer relied on its Fair Maintainable Trade (FMT) valuation scheme adopted at compilation. The Tribunal rejected the pro‑rata approach, found the VOA FMT‑based scheme remained broadly applicable and that the appellant had not shown it could not be reliably applied, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the hereditament at £161,000 RV from 28 November 2016.
The Estate of Douglas Charles Thomas v HMRC [2020] UKUT 6 (LC) 10 January 2020 This appeal concerned the market (best consideration) value on 5 April 2012 of 8.08 acres of development land in Pontyates sold off‑market to a related purchaser. The tribunal preferred comparable‑sales evidence over residual valuations because of uncertain inputs to the latter, inspected the sites and comparables, and fixed the value at £80,000 per gross acre, totalling £646,400 (rounded to £645,000). The appeal against HMRC's £800,000 valuation was allowed in part.
Graham Wolloff & Anor v Jagruti Kantilal Patel [2019] UKUT 333 (LC) 4 November 2019 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Land Registration Act 2002 to determine, on a referral arising from an objection to a restriction application, whether a bankrupt had any beneficial interest in registered land. The Tribunal found the respondent (Ms Patel) was the sole beneficial owner and ordered cancellation of the trustees' Form J restriction; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the trustees' challenge to jurisdiction and upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Upper Tribunal also held that, while the Tribunal has power to decide whether a bankrupt had any beneficial interest at the date of bankruptcy, it may in its discretion direct parties to seek determination of matters (such as quantum) in the court where that is more appropriate.
Fiaz Akhtar v Slough Borough Council [2019] UKUT 308 (LC) 22 October 2019 This case concerns Mrs Fiaz Akhtar's application to alter the Land Register for 3 Montem Lane, disputing a 2007 TR1 said to transfer her title to Qazi Qureshi and contesting its attestation and whether it was signed under duress. The First-tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Mrs Akhtar did not prove the TR1 was not her signature or was improperly attested, and dismissed her application and appeal. The Tribunal also confirmed that even where a "mistake" under Schedule 4 LRA 2002 is established, alteration is not automatic unless the statutory conditions are met.
Laurence John Hallman v Tracy Harkins [2019] UKUT 245 (LC) 2 August 2019 The Upper Tribunal considered whether an unmarried former partner (Ms Harkins) had a beneficial interest in property solely registered to Mr Hallman and whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) could quantify that interest. The UT upheld the FTT's finding that Ms Harkins had a beneficial interest arising from joint liability for a £4,400 loan used for home improvements, and confirmed the Registrar should enter a restriction. The UT held the FTT had no jurisdiction to determine the quantum of the beneficial interest and set aside the FTT's 35% figure as unsound.
BUTTERMERE COURT FREEHOLD LTD v DAVID GOLDSTROM And ANDREW PARISSIS [2019] UKUT 225 (LC) 18 July 2019 This appeal concerned whether internal meter cupboards (and their doors) and internal front doors at two blocks of flats were demised to individual tenants under near‑identical leases. The First‑tier Tribunal had held the front doors demised to tenants but that the meter cupboards were not; the Upper Tribunal concluded the lease plans unambiguously showed the meter cupboards (including their doors) to be within the demises and remade the decisions accordingly, confirming the FTT on the front doors. Tenants therefore bear responsibility for the cupboards and doors as part of their flats.
Penny Jane Gilchrist v C & C Equine Services Limited [2019] UKUT 214 (LC) 9 July 2019 The Upper Tribunal allowed Ms Gilchrist's appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's costs order, holding that a 21 November 2017 settlement letter was a plain "without prejudice" offer and not "without prejudice save as to costs". Because the letter was inadmissible for costs, the FTT was wrong to make Ms Gilchrist liable for all C & C's costs after she refused it; the UT remade the order so she pays half of C & C's costs (to be assessed on the standard basis) and ordered a payment on account of £16,421.59 within 28 days.
Ganga Bahadur Basnet v Linaben Prafulchandra Patel [2019] UKUT 141 (LC) 9 May 2019 This appeal concerned whether a deed dated 8 January 2009 (the "2009 deed") precluded the Appellant from claiming a beneficial interest in 176 Uppingham Avenue. The Upper Tribunal found the Appellant had executed the deed, understood and signed it freely, and there was no evidence of forgery, undue influence, fraud or conflict of interest to vitiate it. The appeal was dismissed, the First-tier Tribunal's direction to cancel the restriction was upheld, and the Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of £23,220 (including VAT).
Taurusbuild Limited & Ors v John Paul McQue & Anor [2019] UKUT 81 (LC) 18 March 2019 This appeal concerned whether rights to use a southern driveway and to park at the front of Dinsdale Hall existed and whether they had been created or preserved by various conveyances, mortgages and planning permissions. The Upper Tribunal rejected an equitable-easement basis tied to the 1988 conveyance but held that a right of way and a right to park were implied into the 2005 mortgage in favour of the mortgagee (MAS) and passed to the Respondents under the 2012 transfer. No express easement was contained in the 2012 transfer and the Respondents could not claim the benefit of the Fifth Schedule covenants from the 1988 conveyance. The appeal was dismissed insofar as the Tribunal upheld the implied rights arising from the mortgage.
Anixter Limited v Secretary of State for Transport [2018] UKUT 405 (LC) 3 December 2018 This appeal concerned whether Anixter's counter-notice to HS2's notice to treat and inclusion of Unit R in a general vesting declaration (GVD) were effective. The Tribunal found Anixter only first knew of the GVD when its envelope was opened on 20 December 2017, that Unit R was an excluded "long tenancy which is about to expire" (so the GVD regime did not apply), and that Anixter's counter-notice to the notice to treat was served three days late and could not be entertained because the 28‑day statutory limit is not extendable. The reference was dismissed.
CORNERSTONE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON [2018] UKUT 356 (LC) 30 October 2018 Cornerstone sought interim Electronic Communications Code rights to access the roof of Lillian Penson Hall for a small number of short, non‑intrusive survey visits after losing a nearby site; the University of London refused. The Upper Tribunal held that such preliminary surveys fall within Code rights (as part of "install" or "works in connection with installation"), that an operator may seek standalone interim rights under para 26 without concurrently pursuing permanent rights under para 20, and that Cornerstone had a "good arguable case" under para 21 so that interim access should be imposed, leaving detailed terms and compensation to be agreed or determined later.
The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London v Transport for London [2018] UKUT 345 (LC) 26 October 2018 This appeal concerned whether claimants could unilaterally withdraw a compulsory‑purchase reference after settlement, and whether the reference remained extant for the purposes of costs. The Tribunal held the claimants did not have an automatic right to withdraw; withdrawal required the Tribunal’s consent under the procedural rule, so the reference remained live solely to determine contested costs. The Tribunal recorded the settlement terms (an interest in land and a 25‑year option) but treated costs applications as unresolved.
Deryn O'Rourke v Keuper Gas Storage Limited [2018] UKUT 160 (LC) 15 May 2018 This appeal concerns a blight notice served by Deryn O'Rourke in respect of Brownhayes Farm after Keuper Gas Storage sought Class E rights over about 270m of the farm's private driveway to facilitate a large underground gas storage Project. The Tribunal held that for the statutory test the driveway should be treated as part of the house/hereditament and that, judged as at the date of the counter-notice and on a realistic assessment of the Project as a whole, taking the Rights would not cause material detriment (ground (c)), so the respondent succeeded on that ground. The Tribunal left open the separate question of whether the Project prevented sale except at a substantially lower price (ground (g)), which the claimant still needed to prove.
Dorcas Adebowale Akanwo v HMRC [2018] UKUT 113 (LC) 10 April 2018 This is an inheritance tax valuation dispute about 180 Morley Avenue, a two‑bed Victorian terraced house, as at the date of death 12 September 2012. The executor contended £200,000; HMRC/VOA (Mr Newell) valued it at £260,000 using a comparative sales approach with adjustments including a 5% reduction for an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The tribunal accepted the VOA comparative analysis (correcting a typographical inspection‑date error) and fixed the market value at £260,000; no costs were ordered.
Peter Palliser v HMRC [2018] UKUT 71 (LC) 16 March 2018 This appeal concerned the market value (for tax valuation at 19 June 2012) of an 88.4% long leasehold share (plus one‑third freehold) of a dated maisonette requiring major refurbishment. The principal issues were whether "hope value" for possible extension should be included and which expert valuation methodology and comparables were reliable. The Tribunal held that hope value can form part of statutory market value where the open market would pay for potential but uncrystallised improvement, found the appellant's expert approach insufficiently objective, and adopted substantially higher refurbished‑state values (refurbished with modest extension: net £2,200,000; refurbished without extension: net £1,832,000), rejecting the appellant's lower valuation.
Alfred Yazdiha & Anor v London Borough of Brent [2018] UKUT 74 (LC) 8 March 2018 This case concerns the quantification of compensation payable to two leaseholders whose 125‑year lease was compulsorily acquired under a 2014 CPO, with the valuation/vesting date fixed at 19 January 2016. The parties dispute the proper market value of the leasehold interest and the amounts payable for disturbance and basic loss payments; the Council had earlier made a 90% advance payment acknowledged by the claimants. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) took over the County Court proceedings to determine compensation, with costs of the earlier proceedings reserved.
Mark Widdows v The Coal Authority [2018] UKUT 23 (LC) 22 January 2018 This appeal concerned whether the Coal Authority’s schedule of remedial works for mining subsidence damage to 15 Bayfield met the requirements of section 6(2) of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. The Upper Tribunal held that the schedule produced on 13 October 2017, as amended by the minor revisions of 30 October 2017, satisfied the statutory requirements and declared that the amended schedule was the remedial action to be taken (implementation to follow unless a proposed sale to the Authority proceeded).
Zumred Quadir Khan v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council [2017] UKUT 432 (LC) 21 December 2017 This appeal determined compensation for compulsory acquisition of a dilapidated two-storey house (13 Tarring Street) with valuation date 5 Dec 2014. The tribunal accepted a market value in reasonable condition of £50,000 but, after deducting realistic refurbishment/residual allowances, fixed the property's value at the valuation date at £15,000, dismissed a speculative loss-of-rent claim, and awarded boarding-up costs of £288. The statutory basic loss payment of 7.5% was held to apply to the market value of the acquired interest (here £1,125), and parties later agreed recoverable costs of £1,845 to be paid by the acquiring authority.
Adrian Philip Glasspool v London Borough of Southwark [2017] UKUT 373 (LC) 6 November 2017 This is a compulsory purchase compensation reference concerning the open market value and disturbance payable for 49 Cuddington, a leasehold maisonette on the Heygate Estate, with possession taken under a general vesting declaration on 6 November 2013. The key issues were the proper valuation date and the amount of disturbance (items left and future acquisition costs); the valuation date was agreed/found to be 6 November 2013 and the parties agreed entitlement to a 10% home loss payment of open market value. The Tribunal heard competing expert evidence and recorded the parties' valuation and disturbance figures for determination under the simplified procedure.
Nigel Elston Bishop & Anor v Transport for London [2017] UKUT 405 (LC) 18 October 2017 This appeal concerned claims by Nigel and Max Bishop (and their company MRS) for c. £4.18m principally for lost future remuneration following compulsory acquisition of Bishop's Yard by Transport for London under the Crossrail Act. The Tribunal found the business was already unprofitable and unsustainable before notice of entry, that the claimed future income depended on speculative turnaround assumptions lacking credible evidence, and dismissed the main claim; only site clearance costs of £46,815 were awarded. Costs were largely ordered against the claimants.
Mustafa Behic & Ors v Northumberland County Council [2017] UKUT 269 (LC) 29 August 2017 This case concerns compensation claims following compulsory acquisition of 4 & 4A Station Road, Blyth under a CPO, including claims for the freehold value and losses to businesses occupying the premises. The tribunal accepted the Council’s uncontested factual statement, fixed the valuation date as 31 January 2012 (date of vesting), and proceeded on the Council’s expert evidence after the claimants did not participate at the hearing. The decision records the issues to be determined (freehold value; claimed heads of loss for the owners and occupiers) and the procedural history but does not, in the provided notes, record final quantum determinations.
The Trustees of the K&M Wholesale Suppliers Ltd Retirement Benefit Scheme v Meadowhead Christian Fellowship [2016] UKUT 31 (LC) 4 August 2017 This case concerned Meadowhead Christian Fellowship’s compulsory purchase of the freehold of a former supermarket used as a place of worship under the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920. The tribunal assessed fair compensation using compulsory-purchase valuation principles, preferred the respondent valuer’s term-and-reversion approach, included marriage value, and awarded total compensation of £6,839. The trustees recovered their costs only up to 25 July 2016 because of the written representations procedure and an earlier valuation error.
CITY OF YORK COUNCIL v CHRIS SYKES (VALUATION OFFICER) [2017] UKUT 230 (LC) 6 July 2017 This appeal concerned the rateable value of West Offices, a hybrid building in York, and whether different parts required different unit rates or end allowances for quantum, parking, listing or layout. The Upper Tribunal held a single base rate of £145.00 psm applied to the whole hereditament (with a 2.5% uplift for raised floors) and rejected separate allowances for quantum, lack of parking, and listed status, but allowed a 7.5% overall allowance for the building’s layout/split floor levels. Agreed revised RVs were entered and the appeals were allowed in part.
JLK LIMITED v EMMANUEL CHIEDU EZEKWE (and others) [2017] UKUT 277 (LC) 6 July 2017 This appeal concerned whether 93 student "pod" units at Alexander Terrace were "dwellings" under s.38 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 so that the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine service charge disputes under s.27A. The Upper Tribunal held that s.38 does not require actual use as someone's "home" but does require that the unit be a separate dwelling; because tenants had rights to share kitchens and living accommodation the pods lacked the necessary separateness. The appeal was allowed on that basis and the FTT was held to have lacked jurisdiction.
SHELFSIDE (HOLDINGS) LTD v VALE OF WHITE HORSE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] UKUT 259 (LC) 21 June 2017 The case concerns an appeal against a s.9A compliance notice requiring removal/replacement of steps/veranda at a mobile home park on the basis they were combustible and breached a licence separation distance. The First-tier Tribunal confirmed the notice; on appeal the Upper Tribunal held the FTT was entitled to apply the civil standard (balance of probabilities) and to rely on general knowledge that uPVC is generally combustible. The UT held that once the council relied on the material type and the appellant admitted it, the evidential burden shifted to the appellant to prove the material was non-combustible; the appeal was dismissed.
Kenneth Gun Why v Cheltenham Borough Council [2017] UKUT 208 (LC) 24 May 2017 This appeal concerned the compensation payable after Cheltenham Borough Council compulsorily purchased 30 Pennine Road, a long-vacant, dilapidated house taken into possession on 19 May 2016. The Tribunal assessed open market value at the valuation date by valuing the property in fair condition and then deducting realistic costs for repairs, clearance and registered land charges, arriving at £140,000. The Tribunal found no redevelopment "hope value" given planning constraints and marginal viability, and no home loss or disturbance payments were payable because the owner did not participate or claim.
Kerry Lambert v Kingston Upon Hull Council [2017] UKUT 126 (LC) 13 April 2017 This appeal concerned disputed ancillary payments after Kingston upon Hull Council acquired Mr Lambert's leasehold flat at Milldane, specifically fees invoiced by an unqualified lay negotiator (Roland Craft) and charges for removals and extended storage. The tribunal allowed a limited payment of £750 for Craft (subject to proof of payment) and £1,500 for removals and storage (being £450 for removals and £800 for six months' storage), with each party to bear their own costs of the reference.
Mavis Hilda Mary Meredith v King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council [2017] UKUT 2 (LC) 10 April 2017 This appeal concerned the market value at the valuation date (18 September 2013) of a derelict Grade II listed house and small curtilage, with dispute between the owner’s expert (residual c. £360,000 based on modest repair costs and small land values) and the acquiring authority’s experts (residual c. £35,000–£65,000 based on much higher repair costs). The Tribunal framed the sole issue as market value at the valuation date to be assessed by reference to the property’s condition, realistic repair costs and planning constraints; procedural history included a later purchase by one expert for £125,000 and an advance payment of £66,750 by the council. The notes do not record a single final award figure reached by the Tribunal in these extracts.
Jon Harding & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2017] UKUT 135 (LC) 31 March 2017 Jon Harding & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport ([2017] UKUT 135 (LC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.
Trustees of the Boulder Bridge Lane Trust v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2017] UKUT 81 (LC) 14 March 2017 This appeal concerned a Trustees' challenge to a negative certificate of appropriate alternative development (CAAD) issued by Barnsley MBC in relation to land compulsorily purchased in December 1985. The Tribunal held the Council had applied the wrong planning policy date and that the pre-6 April 2012 framework (policy as at publication of the CPO) governs the CAAD; it found that several alternative uses (fuel recovery with progressive restoration, limited inert fill, scrap yard) would have been permitted in 1985 and that a former railway building north of Shaw Lane would also have been granted permission for commercial re-use in December 1985. The Council accepted it should have issued a positive CAAD for the agreed uses; remaining issues concern certain planning conditions (notably restoration timing).
SME (Hammersmith) Limited v Transport for London [2017] UKUT 91 (LC) 6 March 2017 This reference concerned the valuation of compensation for extinguishment of SME (Hammersmith) Ltd's KFC leasehold business taken for Crossrail, where the parties agreed maintainable earnings of £107,000 but disputed the earnings multiplier (claimant 17; TfL 7.5). The tribunal recorded agreed factual assumptions and heads of loss and considered four inter‑franchise transactions and a joint DCL report as potential comparables, with contested adjustments for timing/recession, freehold content, drive‑thru mix, post‑acquisition trading and option/value components. No final multiplier determination is recorded in the available notes.
Paul Henry Richard James Newbold & Ors v The Coal Authority [2016] UKUT 432 (LC) 7 February 2017 This case concerns a large claim by the Newbolds for alleged mining subsidence damage to Wentworth Woodhouse and whether recent ground movement (since the 1990s) caused subsidence in four identified parts of the property. The Tribunal ordered preliminary issues to decide if coal mining caused subsidence damage in those four areas; the Coal Authority denies recent mining liability, attributing deterioration to historic movement or other causes. The Court of Appeal previously upheld validity of the claimants' damage notices; no final liability determination appears in the notes provided.
Michael Michael v Salford City Council [2016] UKUT 370 (LC) 6 September 2016 This appeal concerned the market value to be awarded for compulsory acquisition of 212 Great Clowes Street, Salford, at the valuation date 28 April 2008. The Tribunal held the land should be valued on the basis of the standalone planning permission obtainable without third‑party land (the Michael permission) and, using a residual valuation cross‑checked against market evidence, fixed the land value at £280,000; claims for a 10% “premium” and a separate developer’s profit were rejected. Recoverable fees, basic loss at 7.5% (£21,000) and other specified sums were awarded, giving total compensation (excluding interest) of £321,702.61, with the claimant entitled to recover reasonable costs subject to deductions.
SHELFSIDE (HOLDINGS) LTD v VALE OF WHITE HORSE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] UKUT 400 (LC) 9 August 2016 Shelfside appealed the First-tier Tribunal's decision upholding two compliance notices served by the council for breaches of site licence conditions (3(b)(i) 3m boundary setback and 4(a) 6m caravan separation) in relation to Unit 61 at Ladycroft Park. The Upper Tribunal found the FtT was entitled to conclude the unit breached both conditions, that the council was entitled to serve the notices on the civil/administrative standard that the breach "appeared" to exist, and that the FtT properly upheld the notices but sensibly extended the compliance period from six to nine months.
Richard Gordon Burge & Anor v South Gloucestershire Council [2016] UKUT 300 (LC) 27 July 2016 This appeal concerned compensation under s.203 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and article 9 of a local tree preservation order after South Gloucestershire Council refused consent to fell an oak, and the claimants’ conservatory suffered further damage from the tree’s roots. The tribunal found the oak caused the damage, excluded the council’s late heave evidence, rejected the council’s defences (including lack of foreseeability and inadequate foundations of the conservatory) and awarded the claimants £25,000 plus costs to be assessed.
Mark Goodman & Ors v Transport for London [2016] UKUT 126 (LC) 5 April 2016 This appeal concerned Part I Land Compensation Act 1973 claims by residents near the Coulsdon Inner Relief Road, valuing loss at the first claim day (19 Dec 2007). The Tribunal found the new road increased and changed the character of noise (filling quieter intervals between train movements) and awarded market‑based depreciation: 4% for elevated properties on Cordrey Gardens/Deepfield Way and 1% for 79 Brighton Road. Artificial lighting and dust were not found to have a material effect on value.
Avon Ground Rents Ltd v 51 Earls Court Square RTM Company Ltd [2016] UKUT 22 (LC) 14 January 2016 This appeal concerned whether 51 Earls Court Square RTM Company Ltd qualified as an RTM company under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the 2002 Act, given its articles described the premises as "Flat 1-13, 51 Earls Court Square." The Upper Tribunal held that, read objectively in context (including the company name, objects and powers), the articles identified the whole self-contained building and not only the individual flats, and dismissed the appeal.
Robert Lindley Limited v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2016] UKUT 6 (LC) 11 January 2016 This appeal concerned whether pumping operations during flooding of Cottage Field in Dec 2012–Jan 2013 amounted to "flood risk management work" under the Land Drainage Act 1991 as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and so attracted compensation liability under s.14(5) LDA 1991. The Tribunal found the pumping (including temporary pumping) was within the amended definition, that the Environment Agency was assisting the lead local authority (the Council) and its pumps were to be treated as loaned to the Council, and awarded the agreed £14,500 plus interest for crop damage occurring between 28–31 December 2012.
GEYFORDS LIMITED v GEYFORDS LIMITED v (1) MS L O’SULLIVAN (2) MR A GRINTER (3) MR B SHAW (4) MS J MORGAN (5) MR B M BONSOR [2015] UKUT 683 (LC) 17 December 2015 The Upper Tribunal dismissed the freeholder's appeal, holding that paragraph 6 of the Fourth Schedule—a residual service-charge clause—was not sufficiently clear to permit recovery from leaseholders of the landlord's legal costs incurred in litigation with those leaseholders. The tribunal applied ordinary contractual interpretation principles, noting other express indemnities in the lease and the contemporary statutory context, and concluded the contested costs did not fall within the residual wording.
SILK TREE PROPERTIES LIMITED (2) SUSSEX MOBILE HOMES LIMITED(3) WEST SUSSEX MOBILE HOMES LIMITED v MR & MRS C GRANT & OTHERS [2015] UKUT 686 (LC) 16 December 2015 This Upper Tribunal appeal considered whether park owners could contractually recover their legal costs of First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) proceedings from mobile-home occupiers under pre-2006 and post-2006 agreements. The UT held the pre-2006 clause did not permit recovery of the owners’ F-tT legal costs but that the post-2006 clause 4(d) did, in principle, permit recovery of reasonable and properly assessed costs incurred “in respect of giving effect to or requiring performance” of the agreement. The F-tT’s narrower construction limiting clause 4(d) to proactive enforcement was rejected.
HONG XUE v HONG XUE v (1) MR FRANCIS W R CHERRY (2) MRS JANET R CHERRY [2015] UKUT 651 (LC) 30 November 2015 This appeal concerned the premium for a lease extension of the top flat at 17 Ormiston Road, with disputed deferment rate and relativity for a lease with 72.167 years unexpired. The Upper Tribunal reheard the case, rejected the appellant valuer's theoretical model and bespoke local relativity graphs as unreliable, accepted a 5% deferment rate and a 91.4% relativity (from weighted published graphs including Cluttons) and dismissed the appeal, fixing the premium at £37,545. No allowance was made for any benefit under the 1993 Act for this lease term.
MRS PATRICIA FAIRBAIRN v MRS PATRICIA FAIRBAIRN v ETAL COURT MAINTENANCE LIMITED [2015] UKUT 639 (LC) 30 November 2015 This appeal concerned whether a landlord-company could recover by service charge a settlement paid to a leaseholder for disrepair and the landlord’s related legal costs. The Upper Tribunal held the settlement and costs that were consequences of the landlord’s own breach were not recoverable under the lease’s general charging clause for "proper management, administration and maintenance," though some defensive legal costs were reasonable. The Tribunal also found the landlord had not complied with the lease’s required certification of service-charge accounts and substituted reduced annual service-charge figures for the appellant.
WONDER INVESTMENTS LTD v WONDER INVESTMENTS LTD v DAVID JACKSON (VALUATION OFFICER) [2015] UKUT 649 (LC) 26 November 2015 This appeal concerned Wonder Investments Ltd's challenge to the VTE Vice President's refusal to reinstate an appeal struck out for failure to serve a statement of case. The Upper Tribunal treated the appeal effectively as a rehearing for present purposes but found the appellant had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the statement of case had been posted or properly addressed. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused reinstatement.
Ranjana Zeena Parmar v The London Borough of Barnet [2015] UKUT 510 (LC) 23 November 2015 This appeal concerned compensation for the compulsory purchase of Ms Parmar's freehold at 22 Edgeworth Avenue, including the open market value and entitlement to home loss/basic loss payments. The Tribunal valued the property at £650,000 (valuation date 15 Jan 2014), held Ms Parmar not entitled to a home loss payment, and fixed a basic loss payment at 7.5% of the value (£48,750) but declined to award it because no written claim had been made. Costs were awarded against the claimant up to 4 March 2015, thereafter each party to bear their own costs.
LONDON SEPHARDI TRUST v LONDON SEPHARDI TRUST v JOHN LYON’S CHARITY [2015] UKUT 619 (LC) 19 November 2015 This appeal concerned (1) whether a 1986 saving (s.23(3)(c)) continued to disapply an amendment affecting the assumed termination date for an extended tenancy in s.9(1AA)(a) after repeal and re‑enactment by the 2002 Act, and (2) the correct valuation approach for a 3.195‑year unexpired lease. The Upper Tribunal held that Interpretation Act 1978 s.17(2) applied so the saving continued to operate and the tenancy is to be assumed to end in 2066, giving an enfranchisement price of £1,748,000; alternatively, on a rehearing of valuation, it fixed the value of the short lease at £250,000 (relativity ~7.9%) and an alternative price of £2,866,295 if the lease were assumed to end in 2016.
Sheila Grace Hall v London Borough of Hillingdon [2015] UKUT 606 (LC) 17 November 2015 This case determined compensation for compulsory acquisition of a 0.31 ha scrap yard (Rose Cottages) taken by the London Borough of Hillingdon, with valuation date 23 July 2008. The claimant's claims for ransom/special-purchaser value and for hope-value (development value) were rejected; the tribunal accepted the acquiring authority's expert evidence and awarded existing-use value of £532,000 plus £20,000 disturbance, total £552,000. The claimant lacked expert valuation/planning evidence and its late factual witnesses did not overcome that disadvantage; the tribunal exercised its costs discretion and made no order for costs.
FRANK PARKINSON v KEENEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2015] UKUT 607 (LC) 16 November 2015 This appeal concerned whether the lessee of flat 9 at Classic Mansions was entitled to compensation under s.38(10) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 after the LVT varied leases to define separate blocks and re-apportion service‑charge percentages, raising flat 9's share from 3.40% to 8.53%. The First‑tier Tribunal applied a three‑stage approach (identify loss/disadvantage, decide whether to award compensation, quantify it) and found the appellant suffered no compensable loss; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld that conclusion. The tribunals held that correcting defective lease drafting to achieve fair apportionment does not automatically create compensable loss simply because a lessee's future percentage increases.
London Borough of Southwark v VICTORIA JANE CLARK [2015] UKUT 597 (LC) 6 November 2015 This was a review of a First-tier Tribunal decision refusing Southwark recovery of service charges from Ms Clark. The Upper Tribunal found the F-tT had misdirected itself in law, that a valid final demand dated 16 May 2013 was served on the assignee, and that she was therefore liable for £6,734.10 plus interest; the F-tT's ruling on a s.20C refund of fees was also overturned.
SOPHIE AARON THE TRUSTEES OF THE SLOANE STANLEY ESTATE v THE WELLCOME TRUST LIMITED (1) ADRIAN HOWARD MUNDY (2) ARNAUD LAGESSE [2015] UKUT 586 (LC) 6 November 2015 This appeal concerned whether tenants could call Dr Philippe Bracke as an additional expert to explain the statistical methodology underlying their leasehold relativity evidence after landlords' experts challenged that methodology. The Tribunal granted permission subject to strict conditions limiting scope, requiring a compliant report adopting specified parts of the primary valuer's report, and tightly restricting other oral expert evidence to avoid duplication and disproportionate costs. The decision also required joint statements of agreed and disputed matters and transferred responsibility for adopted components from the primary valuer to Dr Bracke.
Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited v CHARLES LYN CLEMO [2015] UKUT 573 (LC) 3 November 2015 This appeal concerned whether a county court consent order of August 2013, which required the defendant to pay "the Claimant's costs of the action in the sum of £811", prevented the landlord from later recovering further administration costs incurred in the LVT/FTT phase under clause 2.15 of the lease. The Upper Tribunal held that, read objectively in its factual context (including the solicitor's schedule), the consent order dealt with the costs of the action as a whole and therefore barred recovery of the later LVT/FTT costs. The landlord's appeal was dismissed.
GRAHAM FRANCIS BACON v MOUNTVIEW ESTATES PLC [2015] UKUT 588 (LC) 28 October 2015 This appeal concerned whether a 1993 tenancy fell within the Rent Act 1977 so that the First‑Tier Tribunal (FTT) lacked jurisdiction under the Housing Act 1988. The Upper Tribunal found the tenant had been a continuous protected/statutory tenant of the same landlord since 1983 and therefore the 1993 grant was a regulated tenancy under s.34(1)(b) Rent Act 1977; the FTT had erred in law and its decision fixing rent at £210/week was set aside.
P R HARDMAN & PARTNERS v P R HARDMAN & PARTNERS v (1) BRENDA GREENWOOD (2) MARILYN FOX [2015] UKUT 587 (LC) 27 October 2015 This appeal concerned whether paragraph 3(b) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 written statement and the statutory scheme allowed a park owner to charge occupiers administration surcharges or overheads on top of the direct cost of LPG, electricity and private sewerage services. The Upper Tribunal held paragraph 3(b) applies to charges levied by third-party suppliers (outgoings) and does not authorise an owner’s general service charge or administration mark‑ups. The Tribunal limited recoverable items to the unit price actually paid to suppliers for LPG and electricity supplied to pitches, standing/unit electricity charges necessary to operate the private sewerage system, and third‑party contractor and licence fees for sewage; other overheads and owner administration costs are not recoverable.
THE DOG & GUN (OXENHOPE) LTD v Catherine Howarth (Valuation Officer) [2015] UKUT 475 (LC) 19 October 2015 This appeal concerned whether a Valuation Officer (VO) was entitled to issue a regulation 15 certificate correcting the 2005 list entry for transitional purposes and whether the certified rateable value for the Dog & Gun on 31 March 2010 was correct. The Upper Tribunal held that issuing a regulation 15 certificate to certify what the 2005 list entry should have been did not impermissibly impugn the earlier list, that the VO had acted unreasonably slowly in issuing the certificate but the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to set it aside on timing grounds, and on the merits substituted a certificate fixing the rateable value at £41,000 effective 31 March 2010.
HAMISH G JOHNSTON & OTHERS PHILIP JOHN DANDY & OTHERS v TAG FARNBOROUGH AIRPORT LIMITED [2015] UKUT 534 (LC) 15 October 2015 This appeal concerned preliminary issues in Land Compensation Act 1973 claims by residents near Farnborough arising from phased airport works by TAG between 2000–2012. The Tribunal held the runway extension and North Apron were "runway or apron alterations", but most earlier claims (circa 2001–2003) were time-barred and, for limitation-relevant dates in 2002, defeated by continued MoD occupation; only claims linked to the West One Apron (completed 28 May 2010) remained live. Parties may make submissions on costs and compensation for the surviving 2010-related claims will be assessed from the first-claim day of 29 May 2011.
MR EDWARD WOOTTON(TRADING AS E F WOOTTON & SON) v MR EDWARD WOOTTON(TRADING AS E F WOOTTON & SON) v MS SARAH GILL (VALUATION OFFICER) [2015] UKUT 548 (LC) 15 October 2015 This appeal concerned whether a modern retail warehouse used by Mr Wootton to store farm machinery, seed and large quantities of wrapped silage from 8 June 2010 to 26 January 2012 was an "agricultural building" exempt from non-domestic rates under Schedule 5 para 3(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The tribunal found the building was occupied together with Mr Wootton's agricultural land and was used solely in connection with agricultural operations during that period. The appeal was allowed and the hereditament deleted from the rating list for 8 June 2010 to 26 January 2012.
Thariq Mahmood Mohammed & Others v Thariq Mahmood Mohammed & Others v Newcastle City Council [2015] UKUT 439 (LC) 6 October 2015 This interim Upper Tribunal decision resolves factual disputes in compulsory purchase references concerning 15 Waterloo Street and related premises, finding many claimant assertions unreliable and several family purported leases sham. The Tribunal held there was effectively one trading business (the Happy Chip), disallowed the claimed second relocation, allowed only a modest personal time award (£450), and directed further expert valuation and measurement hearings. Costs of the first hearing were reserved.
PETER CAIN v PETER CAIN v MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON [2015] UKUT 542 (LC) 25 September 2015 This Upper Tribunal appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal properly excluded service-charge years 2001/02–2006/07 from a landlord-tenant application. The UT upheld the F-tT's factual finding that the tenant had, by repeated unqualified payments and lengthy delay, agreed or admitted those historic charges and so could not litigate them under s.27A(4)/(5). The UT dismissed the appeal and did not rely principally on limitation, laches or case-management powers.
SIMON TURNER AND SARAH TURNER v SIMON TURNER AND SARAH TURNER V ANDREW MURDOCH (VALUATION OFFICER) [2015] UKUT 493 (LC) 25 September 2015 This appeal concerned the rateable value of the Rock Inn, a first-floor licensed restaurant in Rock, Cornwall, and whether the headline rent in a 19 October 2010 lease could be relied on given a surrender and side-letter concession. The tribunal found the headline letting was tainted by the surrender and not an open-market letting, relied instead on a contemporaneous letting of the adjacent unit (5 Beachside), rejected an unsupported 20% fit-out uplift, and reduced the entry to "restaurant and premises" with a rateable value of £41,000 from 29 November 2010.
Andrew John Bolton v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [2015] UKUT 525 (LC) 22 September 2015 This case concerns a mediated settlement between Bolton and Tameside Council in which the parties agreed a payment of £475,000 and also provided that the Council would pay "all his pre reference costs to be assessed if not agreed." The Tribunal held that, read objectively, the Agreement separated the £475,000 payment from the Claimant's pre-referral costs and required the Council to pay those pre-referral costs to be assessed by the Tribunal. The Council's contention that those costs were subsumed into the £475,000 was rejected.
DAVID BARBER v DAVID BARBER V CEREP III TW SARL [2015] UKUT 521 (LC) 21 September 2015 This appeal concerned the rateable value of 43 Mount Pleasant Road at the material day of 1 April 2010, a retail unit within a wider redevelopment site that had become vacant and suffered vandalism and asbestos exposure. The Tribunal found the property was not in reasonable repair, that the necessary works were repairs rather than reconstruction, and that a hypothetical reasonable landlord would regard those repairs as uneconomic in the redevelopment context. The Valuation Officer's appeal was dismissed and the £0 assessment for 1 April 2010 to 30 June 2013 was confirmed.
JOHN PETER SIMON v JOHN PETER SIMON v ST MILDREDS COURT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION LTD [2015] UKUT 508 (LC) 16 September 2015 This appeal concerned whether the statutory 75% consenting majority under s.37(5)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 must exist at the time an application to vary multiple flat leases is issued, and whether prior ballots or consent to a principle or defective draft suffice. The Upper Tribunal held the 75% threshold is a mandatory precondition which must be met when the application is issued, and that consent must relate to the specific application/wording; consents given later or only to a principle or different draft do not satisfy s.37(5)(b). The appeal was allowed on that timing point and the tribunal ordered that certain applicant costs be disallowed under s.20C.
TAISSA WASSILJEW-JONES v TAISSA WASSILJEW-JONES v DONE BROS. (CASH BETTING) LIMITED T/A BETFRED [2015] UKUT 499 (LC) 16 September 2015 This appeal concerned whether the Valuation Office (VO) was entitled to appeal a VTE decision under regulation 42(2)(a) after having been barred for failing to file a statement of case. The tribunal held the VO had not "appeared" at the VTE hearing because no named, notified representative attended under regulation 13(2), so the VO had no right of appeal; an extension of time to seek reconsideration was granted and costs were awarded to the respondent.
MRS JANINE INGRAM v MRS JANINE INGRAM v CHURCH COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND [2015] UKUT 495 (LC) 15 September 2015 This appeal concerned whether VAT charged on HR/porter fees and staff salaries, paid by the landlord to a managing agent and passed through to the tenant as service charges, fell within an extra‑statutory concession in VAT Notice 48 para 3.18 so as not to be recoverable. The tribunal held the concession applies only to mandatory service charges payable by occupiers to persons supplying accommodation and does not exempt VAT paid by a landlord to third‑party suppliers even if the cost is passed on. The appeal and the applicant’s s.20C challenge were dismissed; the respondents may recover the VAT in the service charges.
VINE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE LTD v VINE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE LTD v MARK SMITH [2015] UKUT 501 (LC) 15 September 2015 The case concerns whether a tenant’s expulsion from a housing co‑operative breached a lease covenant requiring the tenant to remain a member throughout the tenancy, and whether a second application to determine that breach was an abuse of process. The Upper Tribunal held that cessation of membership by expulsion did breach clause 2.2 and that bringing a separate s.168 CLRA 2002 determination of that breach was not an abuse of process. The F-tT decision was reversed and the landlord was entitled to seek a s.146 notice and forfeiture proceedings, with the tenant able to apply for relief from forfeiture in the county court.
MRS GERTRUDE COWLING v MRS GERTRUDE COWLING v WORCESTER COMMUNITY HOUSING LIMITED [2015] UKUT 496 (LC) 14 September 2015 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) could determine the reasonableness of an aerial service charge where a county court had earlier entered a money judgment for £511.51 described as "rent arrears" referring to that charge. The Upper Tribunal held the county court judgment resolved liability, amount and payability up to 7 January 2014, so the F-tT lacked jurisdiction to revisit those past charges under s27A; the appeal was dismissed. The F-tT retains jurisdiction to consider reasonableness for later periods treated as a variable service charge.
JAMES WILLIAMS v JAMES WILLIAMS V ANDREW MURDOCH (VALUATION OFFICER) [2015] UKUT 477 (LC) 9 September 2015 This appeal challenged a Valuation Tribunal confirmation of a rateable value of £11,250 (effective 1 April 2010) for the retail unit "Keebunga" in St Ives, focusing on whether the unit should be valued as a ground-floor shop despite raised access via steps and whether passing rent and nearby comparables supported the figure. The Tribunal treated Keebunga as a ground-floor shop, gave significant weight to the passing rent of £13,000 and to comparable settlements (notably Moomaid), found no error in the VTE's approach, and the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
ELITESTONE LIMITED v ELITESTONE LIMITED v NATIONAL GRID GAS PLC [2015] UKUT 452 (LC) 2 September 2015 This appeal concerned Elitestone Ltd's claims for compensation under compulsory acquisition rights granted to National Grid Gas for a high‑pressure pipeline across two Parcels, including disturbance, loss of mineral and development value, and diminution of a restrictive covenant. The Tribunal found the claimant had not proved compensatable loss on any head and assessed compensation at nil; NGG was awarded costs on the standard basis from 14 February 2014, and the earlier advance payment need not be repaid.
(1) ISAAC SADEH (2) DEBORAH KOL (3) CAROLINE EBBORN v (1) ISAAC SADEH (2) DEBORAH KOL (3) CAROLINE EBBORN v (1)MIRHAN AND AZZNIV (CHARITABLE TRUST) (2) MARY-ANN BOWRING [2015] UKUT 428 (LC) 17 August 2015 This appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerned recoverability of service-charge items for 2012 and on-account 2013 at 66 Rosslyn Hill, including a management fee, parts of insurance premiums, a commission, and a £300 S.20 consultation-preparation charge. The Upper Tribunal disallowed the £300 S.20 preparation charge and required deduction of a £184.90 commission from the insurance premium, but remitted the reasonableness of the management fee and certain insurance allocation issues (property-owners liability and commercial loading) to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing. No Upper Tribunal costs or fee award was made in favour of the appellants.
1) STEPHEN CLACY (2) WENDY NUNN v STEPHEN CLACY AND WENDY NUNN V MRS ALEXANDER SANCHEZ & OTHERS [2015] UKUT 387 (LC) 13 August 2015 This appeal concerned whether lessees were liable to pay balancing service charges absent certified service charge certificates, and whether a longstanding practice between the parties prevented the freeholders from insisting on certification. The Upper Tribunal held the lease’s certification provision was procedural machinery, not a condition precedent to liability, so absence of certificate did not bar recovery of sums due; alternatively, the parties’ long-established conduct gave rise to estoppel or waiver preventing the lessees from insisting on certification. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to quantify payable sums.
NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE HOMES LIMITED v NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE HOMES LIMITED v MRS AMY MURTINGA BENTLEY [2015] UKUT 451 (LC) 13 August 2015 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to reduce the market rent for 16 Pelham View to reflect disrepair when the tenant had persistently refused the landlord access for repairs. The Upper Tribunal held the F-tT erred in law by making deductions from the assessed modernised market rent where the adverse condition of the dwelling was directly attributable to the tenant’s refusal of access, and remitted the matter to the F-tT for reconsideration without those improper deductions.
Elysian Fields Management Co Ltd V John Nixon and Patricia Nixon v John Nixon Patricia Nixon [2015] UKUT 427 (LC) 6 August 2015 This appeal concerned whether tenants' liability to pay estimated service charges was suspended where the leases required audited accounts/certificates that had not been produced, and related procedural issues after County Court transfers to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was wrong to treat clauses requiring audited accounts/certificates as a condition precedent to payment of estimated service charges, allowed the landlord's appeal, set aside the FTT's nil assessment, and remitted the matter to a differently constituted FTT to determine amounts payable with directions for filing audited accounts and case timetables.
Westminster City Council v Westminster City Council v UKI (Kingsway) Limited [2015] UKUT 301 (LC) 28 July 2015 This appeal concerned whether a completion notice served on 1 Kingsway was formally valid despite being addressed simply to "Owner" and whether service was effective when delivered to a building receptionist and then emailed to the owner. The tribunal found that paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 4A is satisfied by specifying the building and proposed completion day, so the notice need not state the owner's name on its face, and that service was effective when an electronic copy reached UKI (by 12 March 2012). The Deputy President therefore allowed the appeal and reinstated the notice.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v The LEssees of 1-124 Pond House [2015] UKUT 395 (LC) 21 July 2015 This appeal concerned whether RBKC/TMO's four-year procurement Framework Agreements for major works at Pond House qualified as qualifying long-term agreements (QLTAs) for s.20 consultation rules, whether the applicant had complied with the applicable consultation regime, and whether the Tribunal could make a prospective s.27A(3) determination of lessees’ liability for the proposed works. The Tribunal held the Framework Agreements were QLTAs and that, where qualifying works are the subject of a QLTA, consultation is governed by Schedule 3; it found the consultation steps taken were adequate for the matters examined. The Tribunal refused to make a s.27A(3) determination because the scope, extent and estimated costs of the proposed works lacked sufficient evidential precision, and the application was dismissed.
MARTYN LAMB v GO OUTDOORS LTD v GO OUTDOORS LTD [2015] UKUT 366 (LC) 17 July 2015 This appeal concerned the rateable value (RV) of GO Outdoors' Stockton retail warehouse as at the 2010 valuation date. The tribunal treated the actual letting agreed close to the valuation date (devalued for incentives) as strong evidence, considered comparable lettings and assessments but found no established "tone of the list", and fixed RV at £275,000 from 1 April 2010. Each party was to bear its own costs.
GRAEME AND ROSEMARY SURTEES v UNITED UTILITIES WATER plc [2015] UKUT 384 (LC) 9 July 2015 This appeal concerns a Schedule 12 compensation claim by Graeme and Rosemary Surtees against United Utilities for damage caused by laying a water main across their land. The tribunal found the wider affected area was 0.26 acres, calculated various heads of loss (including reinstatement, loss of production, weed control, consequential loss, fees and disturbance) and awarded a total of £5,886.16. The tribunal rejected an order for specific performance and awarded monetary compensation instead. The judge criticised United Utilities' conduct in negotiation and in handling evidence.
MR P HARRIS v MR P HARRIS v MR D GRACE Valuation Officer [2015] UKUT 365 (LC) 9 July 2015 This appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerned the rateable value of "Sophie's Lounge" in St Helens and whether the hereditament was a private members' club (valuation by rental method) or a bar/proprietary club (valuation by turnover/FMT method). The Tribunal found as a fact that the premises were a bar, accepted the Valuation Officer's FMT-based valuation (FMT £150,000, band 2 midpoint, 7.5% = RV £11,250) and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also refused the Valuation Officer's claim for exceptional costs under the simplified procedure.
MARK SKELTON AND OTHERS v MARK SKELTON AND OTHERS v DBS HOMES (KINGS HILL) LIMITED [2015] UKUT 379 (LC) 6 July 2015 This appeal concerned whether interim on-account service charge demands for 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 were valid where the lease required an Estimate to be served but the landlord failed to enclose or prepare Estimates as required. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's conclusion that the demands were ultimately payable: the 2011-12 demands became effective only when the pre-existing Estimate was belatedly served in 2014, and the later years’ on-account demands could be validated because they related to anticipated future costs rather than past incurred costs so s20B did not bar recovery. The appeal was dismissed except that sums became payable from the date tenants actually received the Estimate in 2014, and the landlord’s Upper Tribunal costs were excluded from recoverable service charges under s20C.
KATHRINE EMMA O’KANE v CHARLES SIMPSON ORGANISATION LIMITED [2015] UKUT 355 (LC) 3 July 2015 This appeal concerned whether an appeal under reg 10(1) of the Mobile Homes (Site Rules) (England) Regulations 2014 was properly dismissed because the appellant had not herself served the respondent within the 21-day period required by reg 10(3). The Upper Tribunal held the 21-day period ran from the day after receipt and that the respondent was in possession of the documents by the 21st day (they had been sent by the First-tier Tribunal), and alternatively that failure to comply strictly with reg 10(3) did not automatically defeat the tribunal’s jurisdiction over an otherwise validly made reg 10(1) appeal. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for merits/directions.
KENDON PACKAGING LIMITED v KENDON PACKAGING LTD V GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY [2015] UKUT 354 (LC) 1 July 2015 This appeal concerned compensation claimed by Kendon Packaging Ltd after compulsory acquisition and relocation from Bow Paper Works to Innova Park, focusing on alleged lost customers, increased operating costs, management time, temporary losses and professional fees. The Tribunal rejected the lost-customers claim for lack of contemporaneous evidence, allowed a one-off estate road service-charge and partial awards for management time and temporary storage, discounted professional fees, and awarded total remaining compensation of £360,596. The decision was final once costs were agreed.
CATHERINE EDOZIE v BARNET HOMES [2015] UKUT 348 (LC) 25 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether a broadly awarded London Development Agency (LDA) grant required Barnet Homes (on behalf of the council) to reduce leaseholders' major-works service charges by a pro rata share. The Tribunal's conclusion that Barnet had "incurred" the costs and was not obliged to give leaseholders a full one-forty-eighth credit from the grant was upheld and the appellant's claim (including restitution/unjust enrichment) was dismissed. The appeal was therefore refused and the F-tT outcome that the apportionment applied was reasonable stands.
HELENA PARTNERSHIPS LIMITED v MR MICHAEL BROWN [2015] UKUT 324 (LC) 25 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether certain tenancy clauses ousted the First-tier Tribunal's (FTT) jurisdiction over a tenant's rent-reduction application under s.13 Housing Act 1988 after the landlord introduced a new service charge in 2014. The Upper Tribunal held that clause 1.10.1 was spent and clause 1.10.2 merely restated the statutory position (and did not create a contractual rent-review falling within s.13(1)(b)), so the FTT had jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed and the FTT's reduction of the rent (to £32.98 weekly, net combined £66.00 including the service charge as assumed by the FTT) was left undisturbed.
IRWELL VALLEY HOUSING ASSOCIATION v MR LEE O’GRADY [2015] UKUT 310 (LC) 25 June 2015 This appeal concerned a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) rent-variation decision where the FTT issued inconsistent reasons and relied on an undisclosed comparable to explain the rent set at £74.23 pw. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was entitled to correct its reasons under rule 50 (or review under rule 55) so long as the correction merely explained an accidental omission and did not change the decision’s substance. However, the FTT breached natural justice by basing its decision on a specific comparable that had not been disclosed to the parties; the decision was set aside and remitted for rehearing.
SNOWBALL ASSETS LIMITED v HUNTSMORE HOUSE (FREEHOLD) LIMITED [2015] UKUT 338 (LC) 25 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether, on collective enfranchisement, the nominee purchaser was entitled to acquire the freehold of additional premises (gardens, parking, driveway and leisure complex) because the freeholder’s counter-notice/draft transfer purported to reserve development rights. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s finding that the leases gave tenants permanent rights to the common facilities and did not confer the freeholder a general right to demolish and redevelop the leisure complex, that the rights offered under section 1(4) were not equivalent/permanent, and that the additional premises vested in the nominee purchaser with a valuation of £10,000. The freeholder’s appeal was dismissed.
BPP (FARRINGDON ROAD) LIMITED v BPP (FARRINGDON ROAD) LIMITED v CROSSRAIL LIMITED [2015] UKUT 195 (LC) 23 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) could award costs in a reference under Schedule 5 to the Crossrail Act 2008 for temporary possession of land and whether such costs could form part of compensation. The Tribunal held that Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (including section 4) applies and that rule 10(6)(a) of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 covers proceedings for compensation arising from temporary statutory possession (exclusive possession), while rule 10(6)(b) (injurious affection) denotes conventional nuisance-type damage and does not cover authorised temporary possession. The Tribunal ordered Crossrail to pay the claimant’s costs of the strike-out application.
G & B Compressor Hire Limited v The Greater London Authority [2015] UKUT 253 (LC) 22 June 2015 This appeal concerned compensation payable to G & B Compressor Hire Ltd after compulsory acquisition of its Ruckholt Road waste transfer site and enforced relocation to temporary and replacement premises. The tribunal rejected most of the claimant’s projected lost profits and many increased operating cost claims as unproven, allowed a limited period of lost trading profit (£91,101), specified relocation and other heads of loss (total compensation £671,004) and ordered the GLA to pay 50% of the claimant’s costs on the standard basis, subject to deduction of earlier advances.
MR SEAN DEVINE v MR SEAN DEVINE v TRAFFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL [2015] UKUT 340 (LC) 18 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether a compensation claim under a confirmed compulsory purchase order had been validly compromised by correspondence fixing compensation at £118,000 and whether one of two joint personal representatives could bring the reference. The tribunal found the parties had reached a binding compromise fixing compensation at £118,000 (with agreed interest and fees) and, for completeness, held that one personal representative can validly act in relation to pure personalty so as to bind the co-administrator.
THE GATEWAY (LEEDS) MANAGEMENT LIMITED v (1) MRS BAHAREH NAGHASH (2) MR IMAN SHAMSIZADEH [2015] UKUT 333 (LC) 16 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether charges for a gym, concierge office rent and CCTV at The Gateway, Leeds were recoverable as variable service charges under section 18 and whether the First-tier Tribunal had adequately reasoned and applied the reasonableness test in reducing those charges. The Upper Tribunal held the disputed payments were service charges within its jurisdiction, that the F-tT’s reductions (gym 50%, CCTV 20%, concierge office 50% where applicable) were open to it on the evidence and inspection, and dismissed the appeal. The UT also ordered that the landlord may not recover its appeal costs through future service charges under section 20C.
MILTONLAND LIMITED v MILTONLAND LIMITED v PLATINUM HOUSE (HARROW) RTM CO LTD [2015] UKUT 236 (LC) 15 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether an RTM company's s.80 claim notice was invalid because a referenced title plan edged in red included a small yard the landlord said could not be part of the right to manage. The tribunal held the notice did identify the premises (the self-contained building Platinum House and its appurtenant property) and that the bracketed reference to the plan was descriptive rather than a positive claim over every parcel within the red edging. The appeal was dismissed.
WONDER INVESTMENTS LTD v DAVID JACKSON (VALUATION OFFICER) [2015] UKUT 335 (LC) 15 June 2015 Wonder Investments appealed to the Upper Tribunal after the VTE Vice‑President refused to reinstate an appeal that had been struck out for failure to serve a statement of case. The Upper Tribunal held that the Vice‑President's refusal under regulation 10(5) was a "decision given on an appeal" within regulation 42, that the appellant fell within regulation 42(2)(a) as having made written representations, and dismissed the Valuation Officer's strike‑out application, allowing further procedural steps or an oral hearing to be requested.
THE TRUSTEES OF THE ALICE ELLEN COOPER-DEAN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION v THE TRUSTEES OF THE ALICE ELLEN COOPER-DEAN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION v GREENSLEEVES OWNERS LIMITED [2015] UKUT 320 (LC) 12 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether Schedule 6 paragraph 14(2) to the 1993 Act required netting off a negative-value intermediate head-lease against the freeholder's reversion value on collective enfranchisement, and whether the freeholder was entitled to additional compensation under paragraph 5. The Upper Tribunal held that para 14(2) operates as a netting-off provision which reduced the freehold premium to nil and that paragraph 5 did not entitle the Trustees to the "missing" value; the FTT's decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
KEN BAINBRIDGE (VO) v BOLDFIELD LIMITED (1) GREENFIELD SOFTWARE LIMITED (2) [2015] UKUT 295 (LC) 9 June 2015 This appeal concerned the correct rateable values for Units A and D, Trinity Court, Buckingway Business Park, with the sole issue whether the VTE was right to adopt £137 per sqm for main office space. The Upper Tribunal preferred the Valuation Officer's evidence and found the VTE erred in disregarding comparable rents and settled list assessments, setting Unit A RV at £25,750 (effective 10 June 2013) and Unit D RV at £51,500 (effective 23 July 2010). No order as to costs.
(1) CARIBAX LIMITED (2) STARCLASS (HINDE HOUSE) NO. 2 LIMITED (3) STARCLASS (HINDE HOUSE) LIMITED (4) LONDON & NEW YORK LIMITED v CARIBAX LTD AND STARCLASS (HINDE HOUSE) V HINDE HOUSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED [2015] UKUT 234 (LC) 4 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether monies shown in the landlord’s service-charge accounts as a "Reserve Fund" had to be applied to repair, renewal and maintenance when the lease required a "specially designated trust fund" but no formal trust account had been established. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the sums were held on trust for the lease purposes and must, so far as possible, be applied to qualifying repair expenditure to the extent of the fund’s credit; it also ordered that the respondent’s First-tier Tribunal costs not be recoverable from the four appellants’ service charges and adjourned consideration of an order under s.20C in respect of the Upper Tribunal appeal costs.
Michael Rossman v Michael Rossman v The Crown Estate Commissioners [2015] UKUT 288 (LC) 3 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether a fixed 0.8% service‑charge contribution in Mr Rossman's 1969/1989 lease was a sufficiently serious "defect" under section 57(6) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to require modification when granting a new lease. The Upper Tribunal held the term was a defect and unreasonable to include unmodified, set aside the First‑tier Tribunal's decision to retain it, and remitted the case to the FTT to determine appropriate replacement wording with full evidence.
POST BOX GROUND RENTS LIMITED v POST BOX GROUND RENTS LIMITED V THE POST BOX RTM COMPANY LTD [2015] UKUT 230 (LC) 1 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether an RTM company's withdrawal of its First-tier Tribunal application terminates the application for the purposes of landlord cost recovery under s88 of the 2002 Act. The Upper Tribunal held that withdrawal alone does not terminate the tribunal's jurisdiction and that s88(3) (the limited exception for tribunal proceedings) requires the tribunal to dismiss the application before costs for tribunal proceedings are excluded; accordingly the RTM company was liable for reasonable costs from service of the claim notices (12 May 2012) until withdrawal (12 November 2012). The Upper Tribunal dismissed the RTM company's application and remitted quantification of costs to the FtT if the parties could not agree.
THE TRUSTEES OF THE ISRAEL MOSS CHILDREN’S TRUST v MR NIGEL BANDY [2015] UKUT 276 (LC) 1 June 2015 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal gave adequate reasons for quantifying a £600 (50%) deduction from a hypothetical market rent when fixing a fair rent for a ground-floor flat under the Rent Act 1977. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT had described poor condition but failed to explain how it reached the £600 figure or why its figure differed materially from the rent officer’s and the tenant’s quantified evidence. The FTT’s decision was set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination by a differently constituted tribunal.
Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited v DARLASTON COURT RTM LIMITED [2015] UKUT 277 (LC) 22 May 2015 This appeal concerned whether a single Right to Manage (RTM) company may acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building and the validity of an LVT decision that Darlaston Court RTM Ltd could acquire rights over three blocks. The Upper Tribunal allowed Sinclair Gardens’ appeal, applying the Court of Appeal’s ruling that an RTM company may not acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building, and set aside the LVT decision. Entitlement to costs under s.88(1) of the 2002 Act, if disputed, was to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited v THE MALTINGS (STANSTEAD ABBOTTS) MANAGEMENT CO LIMITED [2015] UKUT 278 (LC) 22 May 2015 This appeal concerned whether a single Right to Manage (RTM) company may acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building. The First-tier Tribunal had held The Maltings Management Ltd could acquire rights over two blocks, but that decision was overturned on appeal in light of the Court of Appeal's ruling in Triplerose v 90 Broomfield Road. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the FTT decision as erroneous.
SULTANA ANSARI v London Borough of Southwark [2015] UKUT 204 (LC) 22 May 2015 Mrs Ansari sought permission to appeal out of time against nine prohibition orders served April 2011; the First‑tier Tribunal refused and the Upper Tribunal reviewed that refusal. The UT held the FtT was not wrong in law: there was no good reason for a nearly three‑year delay, the council’s 20 April 2011 assurance did not justify continued reliance after it was qualified in October 2011, and parties cannot waive or displace the statutory out‑of‑time procedure. The appeal was dismissed and permission to bring the late appeal was refused.
HAZEL ST CLARE OLIVER v SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL [2015] UKUT 494 (LC) 21 May 2015 This appeal concerned how much of CESP grant funding should reduce Miss Oliver’s service charge for cladding works and related uplifts, and applications about recoverable costs and the Tribunal hearing fee. The Tribunal credited the cladding base grant and half of the whole-house bonus to reduce her charge but disallowed any area bonus, reducing her liability to £6,091.59; it also held that no more than half of the Council’s costs could be treated as relevant and ordered the Council to pay the £500 hearing fee.
HAZEL ST CLARE OLIVER v SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL [2015] UKUT 229 (LC) 21 May 2015 This appeal concerned whether major re-cladding works carried out by Sheffield City Council on 40 deck-access blocks were reasonably incurred, carried out to a reasonable standard, and correctly apportioned to leaseholders, and whether CESP funding should reduce recoverable service charges. The Upper Tribunal upheld the decision to re-clad as reasonable in light of systemic defects (including HAC and timber-frame issues), found the works broadly of reasonable standard but ordered limited reductions for specified defects and an erroneous balcony cost, and directed that CESP funding attributable to qualifying works be credited against Miss Oliver's service charge with provision for further evidence on apportionment.
SHAW’S TRAILER PARK (HARROGATE) v MR P SHERWOOD AND OTHERS [2015] UKUT 194 (LC) 21 May 2015 This appeal concerned the validity of three pitch‑fee review notices served in 2014 for a protected caravan site where annual review date is 1 April. The Upper Tribunal held the first notice invalid because it specified the wrong RPI percentage calculated under the prescribed method, but allowed the appeal on the third notice, ruling that a late review notice can validly take effect after the next review date and substituting a determination fixing the new fee at £28.71 effective 28 April 2014. The FTT's finding that all three notices were ineffective was therefore varied.
ASHLEIGH COURT RIGHT TO MANAGE COMPANY LIMITED v (1) MS R DE-NUCCIO, (2) MR S RAIVADERA (3) MR N RANDALL (4) MR I SKIDMORE (5) MRS S LAMONT SKIDMORE [2015] UKUT 258 (LC) 20 May 2015 This appeal concerned whether an RTM company's statutory consultation under Schedule 4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003 was defective, invoking the s.20 ceiling on recoverable consultation costs, and whether two particular service‑charge items were properly disallowed or reduced by the First‑tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FtT's finding that the Stage 2 notice failed to specify reasonable place/hours and that estimates were not genuinely available for inspection, so the s.20 £250 limit applied. The FtT's substantive decisions disallowing the weed‑membrane/gravelling item and reducing the 2012 building maintenance charge were also upheld. The principal appeal and the two subsidiary appeals were dismissed.
MRS TERHAS TEDLA v CAMERET COURT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION LIMITED [2015] UKUT 221 (LC) 20 May 2015 This appeal concerned whether a 2009 "full and final settlement" of service charges barred the tenant from challenging charges predating 24 June 2007, and whether service charge demands complied with s.47(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 so as to avoid the suspensory sanction in s.47(2). The Tribunal held the 2009 correspondence amounted to a compromise admitting liability for pre-24 June 2007 charges (so s.27A jurisdiction did not apply) but found some demands failed to identify which entity was the landlord and therefore s.47(2) suspended recoverability until proper notice was given. The tenant’s application under s.20C for costs was refused.
TINTERN ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION LTD v (1) MR DAVID OWEN (2) MRS ANNE OWEN [2015] UKUT 232 (LC) 19 May 2015 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had given adequate reasons and whether it had jurisdiction under s.27A to determine service-charge disputes for 2011–2013 after the tenants had paid those charges and limited their s.27A challenge to pre‑July 2009 arrears. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT's written reasons were inadequate and that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the 2011–2013 charges because those sums had been paid and, by the terms of the Owens' s.27A application, effectively admitted. The FTT determinations for the years ending 30 June 2011–2013 were set aside; the award of £260 reimbursement to the Owens was upheld.
THOMAS NEWALL LIMITED v Lancaster City Council [2015] UKUT 598 (LC) 14 May 2015 This appeal concerned a wasted costs application by Thomas Newall Ltd against the acquiring authority’s expert, Mr Andrew Massie, and his firm Keppie Massie LLP, after a prior unsuccessful application against the authority’s solicitors. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act to make a wasted costs order against an expert who did not act as a representative, and in any event dismissed the late application because the Tribunal had already considered and penalised Mr Massie’s conduct on costs, the matter could not be reopened, and the application was out of time and would risk injustice. The claimant’s claim for exemplary or punitive damages was also summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Aysin Behchet v London Borough of Southwark [2015] UKUT 182 (LC) 12 May 2015 This case concerns compensation for compulsory acquisition of the freehold of 91 Kennington Park Road, a derelict Grade II listed house vested on 20 March 2008. The Tribunal had to decide open market value at vesting, whether an auction sale of a building lease indicated freehold value, and which claimed costs were recoverable. The Tribunal accepted the claimant’s inspected agent evidence and fixed open market value at £800,000 (after sales costs), awarded a basic loss payment of £60,000 and allowed specified reinvestment, counsel and valuation fees while disallowing pre‑reference costs and certain counsel fees.
(1)UNION PENSION TRUSTEES LIMITED (2) PAUL BLISS v MRS MAUREEN SLAVIN [2015] UKUT 103 (LC) 11 May 2015 This appeal concerned whether freeholders could recover as service charges (a) payments to a contractor for major remedial works where no contractor invoice was produced, and (b) legal costs of tribunal proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the invoice/evidence point, holding that absence of an invoice is relevant but the FTT should have considered that absence against the totality of corroborative evidence and so remitted the matter for rehearing and further evidence. The appeal was dismissed on legal costs: the lease did not clearly and unambiguously permit recovery of tribunal/legal costs as service charge items, so the FTT was right to disallow them.
CATHERINE MARY WILLENS v INFLUENTIAL CONSULTANTS LTD [2015] UKUT 362 (LC) 7 May 2015 This appeal concerned whether £2,427 of legal/administration fees charged by landlord Influential Consultants Ltd (ICL) to tenant Catherine Willens were recoverable under lease clause 3(13) as costs "in contemplation of proceedings" (including service of a s.146 notice). The Upper Tribunal reheard the matter, relying in particular on a pre‑instruction email from ICL’s director indicating an intention to pursue forfeiture, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the First‑tier Tribunal’s finding that the fees were so incurred. The Tribunal also held that a later payment by the mortgagee described as "in full and final settlement" did not prevent Mrs Willens from pursuing the appeal.
ONE HOUSING GROUP v (1) MR IAN KINGHAM AND MRS JANE KINGHAM (2) MS JANE BERRYMAN [2015] UKUT 205 (LC) 5 May 2015 This appeal concerned whether leaseholders must pay towards the capital cost of the Barkantine Heat and Power (BHP) plant and related construction of lease provisions, and whether the landlord could recover maintenance (revenue) costs from leaseholders. Documentary disclosure (the PFI/concession agreement and the stock transfer agreement) showed the landlord's payments were limited to revenue/availability charges and did not include any capital contribution. The Upper Tribunal held leaseholders are not liable for any capital contribution but the landlord may recover its share of the BHP maintenance (revenue) costs; the 2010/11 per-flat service charge was confirmed at £343.75.
MR CYRIL RAPOSE and others v London Borough of Wandsworth [2015] UKUT 172 (LC) 22 April 2015 This appeal concerned compensation claims arising from the compulsory purchase of 312–320 Earlsfield Road, principally Mr Sajid Haq's claim to home-loss, occupier's-loss and disturbance/business payments. The Tribunal found he was a gratuitous licensee with no proprietary interest, had not proved any quantifiable removal or disturbance loss, and that Apex Travel's claims were compromised by its prior authorisation of a representative. The reference was dismissed with effect from 30 October 2014 for insufficiency of evidence and non-compliance with the Tribunal's order.
HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL v BRAEAR DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED [2015] UKUT 145 (LC) 21 April 2015 This appeal concerned whether an improvement notice under Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004 could validly be served on the freeholder of a converted block of flats that was managed by an RTM company but which was an unlicensed house in multiple occupation (HMO). The Upper Tribunal held paragraph 4(2) (service on an "owner" of common parts) did not apply because s.1(5) excludes an HMO from the definition "building containing one or more flats", and that paragraph 2 required service on the person(s) having control of the HMO or the person managing it. The notice served on the freeholder (and acknowledged on the RTM company) was therefore invalid; the First-tier Tribunal's quashing of the notice was upheld.
MR DAVID WOOD v KINGSTON UPON HULL CITY COUNCIL [2015] UKUT 165 (LC) 16 April 2015 This appeal concerned a s.12 Housing Act 2004 improvement notice requiring fire‑protection work affecting both a first‑floor flat (Flat 4) and the Ground Floor Flat at 141–143 Princes Avenue, Hull. The Upper Tribunal held that a single improvement notice can lawfully be addressed jointly where a single remedial scheme necessitates work in premises of more than one owner, but it was irrational here to require an expensive joist‑filling option when a cheaper effective alternative confined to the Ground Floor Flat was available. The notice served on Mr Wood was quashed and the notice on Ms Peacock was varied to require her alone to replace the specified part of her ceiling.
MR PAVEL L V CURZON v MR M C WOLSTENHOLME AND OTHERS [2015] UKUT 173 (LC) 15 April 2015 This appeal concerned whether an unregistered initial notice served by tenants in 2004 remained effective against the original freeholder after he transferred the freehold to his wife and later reacquired it, and whether an agreed purchase price could be reopened. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal: the initial notice remained effective as against the original freeholder, and the unconditional agreed price of £6,330 (27 July 2006) ousted the tribunal’s power to re-determine price except as permitted by statute.
Maria Da Silva v London Borough of Brent [2015] UKUT 120 (LC) 31 March 2015 This appeal concerned disputed heads of compensation following compulsory acquisition of Ms Da Silva's leasehold flat, principally a large surveyor's invoice, a solicitor's bill, the claimant's personal time/travel/mobile claims, and various Rule 6 disturbance items. The Tribunal held the third surveyor invoice (£28,600 + VAT) disproportionate and made a summary assessment allowing £14,300 + VAT; disallowed the CLC solicitor's invoice as relating to a challenge to the CPO; rejected personal time/travel/mobile claims for lack of evidence; allowed certain disturbance items in reduced sums. The Tribunal determined outstanding compensation at £26,930.50, made no costs order, and noted statutory interest.
DHUGAL CLARK v Manchester City Council [2015] UKUT 129 (LC) 27 March 2015 This appeal concerned an owner’s application to vary an HMO licence to permit a sixth occupant after adding an upper sleeping platform with limited headroom. The Upper Tribunal found the First-tier Tribunal had treated the matter as a review rather than the rehearing required by Schedule 5 paragraph 34(2), allowed the appeal on that procedural ground and remitted the case for a full rehearing. The UT also held that a local authority may publish guidance identifying room sizes it will ordinarily regard as too small but that such guidance is not a statutory minimum and the tribunal must assess the suitability of the whole house.
PETER CAIN v London Borough of Islington [2015] UKUT 117 (LC) 26 March 2015 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) retained jurisdiction to decide how a lease required a service charge to be apportioned after the parties had agreed the sum payable. The Upper Tribunal held the F-tT had jurisdiction initially because apportionment was subsidiary to quantifying the service charge, but that jurisdiction ended once the parties compromised the payable amount, so the F-tT’s decision on apportionment was beyond its jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed and the F-tT decision set aside; the matter was not remitted.
Birdlip Limited v (1) GRAHAM AND CHARLOTTE LISTER (2) CHRISTOPHER VEYS AND DEBORAH VEYS (3) JOHN PURSSELL AND ANN PURSELL (4) DUNCAN HOWE AND CAROLINE HOWE (5) ROBIN PARKER AND KIRSTY PARKER (6) RICHARD FODEN AND RACHEL WALTON (7) ANDREW HUNTER (8) NEIL MATHERS [2015] UKUT 115 (LC) 24 March 2015 This preliminary hearing decided whether eight named objectors could oppose Birdlip’s section 84(3A) application to modify restrictive covenants affecting Little Orchards. The tribunal found there was a valid scheme of development and that the covenants were enforceable, directed that each objector be permitted to oppose the application, but suspended that direction pending any appeal in the concurrent Chancery proceedings.
MISS C WAALER v THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW [2015] UKUT 188 (LC) 24 March 2015 This appeal concerned permission to appeal an Upper Tribunal decision about how section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 should be applied to service charge works and whether a different approach is required for repairs versus improvements. The Upper Tribunal granted the council permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on that point as a substantial legal issue, refused the tenant permission to appeal on her factual grounds, and declined to exercise a rule 56 review.
(1) JONATHAN HOWARD ROBERTS (2) JANET ANN THAIN v MARIA MERCEDES FERNANDEZ [2015] UKUT 106 (LC) 23 March 2015 This appeal concerned the premium payable to extend a 72‑year lease of flat No.70 Andace Park Gardens, focusing on relativity, possible onerous lease adjustments, the deferment rate and the capitalisation rate. The Upper Tribunal accepted the F-tT's use of RICS market relativity graphs, rejected proposed adjustments for onerous lease features, reduced the deferment rate to 5.25% and increased the landlord's capitalisation rate to 7%, but dismissed the appeal as the net change to the premium was de minimis (premium ~£10,052).
DOUBLE MAXIM BREWERY LTD v JUDITH SMITH (VALUATION OFFICER) [2015] UKUT 78 (LC) 23 March 2015 This appeal concerned the rateable value of Unit 1 Gadwall Road, a specialist brewery, and whether valuation should be by reference to local rental/settlement evidence, a contractor's test, or receipts/profits. The tribunal preferred local rental evidence and set a basic rate of £35.00/m2, excluded gantry and cold store from the 1 April 2010 valuation (they were installed later), reinstated a 3% end allowance, and applied the agreed 10% MCC flooding deduction from 1 October 2012. The resulting entries were RV £52,000 from 1 April 2010 and RV £48,500 from 1 October 2012; no costs were awarded.
ONE HOUSING GROUP LIMITED v (1) DAVID WRIGHT (2) ABDUL MONER and AFRUJA BEGUM [2015] UKUT 124 (LC) 19 March 2015 One Housing sought recovered service charges from two leaseholders; the First‑tier Tribunal found parts time‑barred, concluding payments had been appropriated to recent debts and no appropriation to earlier debts had been communicated. The Upper Tribunal allowed One Housing’s appeal, holding the First‑tier Tribunal erred in its analysis and overturning its limitation findings.
PENDRA LOWETH MANAGEMENT LIMITED v MR & MRS NORTH [2015] UKUT 91 (LC) 19 March 2015 This appeal concerned whether the management company’s annual estimated service charge demands were defective because they were based on company-wide budgets/accounts rather than a strict estimate of Service Expenditure, and whether tenants’ liability to pay was suspended until audited service charge accounts were produced. The Upper Tribunal held the First‑tier Tribunal was wrong to treat such demands as automatically invalid for relying on company budgets and that failure to produce audited accounts did not operate as a condition precedent to payment. The appeal on those issues was allowed and the remaining issues (including the s.47 point and quantification under s.19 LTA 1985) were remitted to the FTT.
URBAN LETTINGS (LONDON) LTD v LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY [2015] UKUT 104 (LC) 5 March 2015 This appeal concerned whether Urban Lettings (London) Ltd (ULL) was a "person having control" of 12 self-contained units that together formed three s257 HMOs and thus liable under s72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, with a rent repayment order (RRO) made against it. The Upper Tribunal held that, on the agreed facts, ULL received the aggregate rack rent for the units (having rights of access to common parts) and so was a person having control, had committed the offence, and the FTT's RRO of £16,000 was upheld. ULL's s72(5) "reasonable excuse" defence was not allowed because it had not been raised before the FTT and, in any event, the possibility of licence refusal or onerous conditions did not amount to a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed.
ANDREW McDONOUGH (VALUATION OFFICER) v MRS ANDREA O’KEEFFE [2015] UKUT 74 (LC) 2 March 2015 The Valuation Officer appealed a VTE decision that reduced the rateable value of a racing stable but withdrew the appeal after reassessing the case; the Tribunal considered whether the VO's withdrawal was unreasonable and whether the respondent should recover costs. The Tribunal found the respondent's detailed response and expert evidence were reasonable and that the VO was not unreasonable in withdrawing when he did, but some of the VO's criticisms were unjustified. The Tribunal consented to the withdrawal and ordered the VO to pay 50% of the respondent's costs for preparing written representations on costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
SWANBRAE LIMITED v MISS JANET M RYDER [2015] UKUT 69 (LC) 24 February 2015 Swanbrae sought to increase rent for Miss Ryder at 81 Mayville Road; the FTT struck out its 2013 rent‑increase referral, treating the 1994 agreement as a regulated tenancy under the Rent Act 1977 and holding it lacked jurisdiction. The Upper Tribunal allowed Swanbrae’s appeal, holding the FTT was wrong to assume the tenancy was regulated on the material before it; on fuller evidence the 1994 agreement is an assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988 and the matter is remitted to the FTT to determine rent under s.14 HA 1988.
SENNADINE PROPERTIES LIMITED v MR TOBY HEELIS [2015] UKUT 55 (LC) 23 February 2015 This appeal concerned an LVT management order for 94 New Kings Road (two flats above a ground-floor commercial unit) and challenges that the tribunal proceeded unfairly in the appellant’s absence and that parts of the order exceeded s.24 powers. The UT held there was no procedural unfairness because the freeholder had notice and chose not to attend, but it found the order impermissibly conferred powers over the commercial unit (including a direction to "disclaim" the commercial lease) and was disproportionate. The appeal was allowed in part: the order was varied to confine the manager’s remit to the upper flats, structure and common parts and to require the freeholder to meet the balance of service costs after lessees’ contributions.
Iris Hyslop v 38/41 CHG RESIDENTS COMPANY LIMITED [2015] UKUT 46 (LC) 16 February 2015 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) should have inquired whether the appellant was in receipt of a qualifying benefit (Pension Credit) before ordering her to reimburse the landlord's LVT fees of £350. The Upper Tribunal held that regulation 9(2) did not impose a duty on the tribunal to make inquisitorial enquiries about benefits unless the matter was raised by a party or otherwise apparent from the material before the tribunal, and dismissed the appeal, leaving the fee order intact.
MR D. and MRS L. CADDICK v WHITSAND BAY HOLIDAY PARK LIMITED [2015] UKUT 63 (LC) 16 February 2015 This appeal concerned the Upper Tribunal review of the First-tier Tribunal's strike-out of Mr and Mrs Caddick's section 27A claim as an abuse of process and, obiter, the substantive question whether their lodge qualified as a "building" or "dwelling" under the 1985 Act. The UT found no error of law in the FTT's broad merits-based strike-out (risk of repeated litigation by successors being a legitimate consideration) and dismissed the appeal. The UT also (obiter) concluded the lodge remained a movable park home, not part of the realty, and thus not a "dwelling" for s.38.
MRS PATRICIA OBICHUKWU v THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD [2015] UKUT 64 (LC) 16 February 2015 This case concerns Mrs Patricia Obichukwu’s 20-year shop lease and whether handing keys to the London Borough of Enfield preserved any right to compensation after the council made a compulsory purchase order for redevelopment. The Tribunal held there was no express or enforceable agreement preserving compensation, that the lease was surrendered by operation of law when keys were returned and accepted, and dismissed the claimant’s reference and legitimate-expectation claim. The claimant was ordered to pay 25% of the respondent’s costs.
MR KEIR HARDMAN (VALUATION OFFICER) v BRITISH GAS TRADING LIMITED [2015] UKUT 53 (LC) 13 February 2015 The Valuation Officer appealed a VTE decision that had set the rateable value of Peterborough Power Station at £1. The Upper Tribunal held the VTE was wrong in law and fact to treat the hypothetical tenant's prospective horizon as confined to one or two years and rejected the £1 valuation, restoring the Valuation Officer's revised list value of £1,012,500 with effect from 1 April 2005.
Columbia House Properties (No.3) Ltd v IMPERIAL HALL FREEHOLD LIMITED [2015] UKUT 45 (LC) 3 February 2015 This appeal concerned whether a managing agent’s invoice (£12,366) could be recovered by a freehold owner under s.33 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 after a lessee served a s.13 notice and paid most costs but not the managing agent. The First-tier Tribunal rejected recovery, treating the agent as an intermediary and doubting relevance/duplication; the Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred in law and on reasons, allowed the appeal and remitted the claim for rehearing with guidance. No order was made for the appeal costs because no proper application for them was pursued.
Ms Carina Waaler v London Borough of Hounslow [2015] UKUT 17 (LC) 28 January 2015 This appeal concerned recovery from a leaseholder of service charges for major estate works (roof replacement, window replacement, cladding and asbestos removal). The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s finding that replacing a flat roof with a pitched roof was a reasonable method of repair and its costs were recoverable, but found error in treating all window and cladding costs as reasonably incurred and remitted the matter to the FtT to quantify any required reduction. A limited costs order was made in respect of the appeal; no s.20C order was made in respect of the FtT decision.
Mr Shiad Khan v Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive T/A Nexus [2015] UKUT 43 (LC) 27 January 2015 This appeal concerned Mr Khan's claim for compensation after part of his yard was taken into possession in July 2000 and referred only in July 2013. The Tribunal held the Limitation Act 1980 six-year period barred the claim, finding no estoppel by convention, representation/promissory estoppel or waiver arose from negotiations or advance payments, and s29 did not restart limitation for such compulsory acquisition claims. The acquiring authority succeeded and the claim was dismissed; Mr Khan was ordered to pay the authority's costs.
Norwich City Council v SIMON & SUSANNE REDFORD [2015] UKUT 30 (LC) 26 January 2015 This appeal concerned whether communal lighting service charges levied by Norwich City Council, calculated by apportioning a city-wide lighting contract by rateable value, were recoverable under leases requiring a lessee to pay a "fair share" of expenditure attributable to the Estate. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's decision that, in the absence of estate-specific evidence showing the costs attributable to the Estate, the apportionment by rateable value did not satisfy the lease and the challenged charges were not payable. The appeal was dismissed and limited costs directions were given.
ZAMBRA INVESTMENTS LIMITED v MISS TRACEY ELLIS [2015] UKUT 31 (LC) 26 January 2015 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to substitute an apportionment of insurance premiums based on an AXA quotation that appeared to relate to different numbers of units and a different sum insured. The Upper Tribunal held that the F-tT failed to regard whether the comparator was truly comparable and failed to consider or give reasons for rejecting the appellant's reinstatement valuation, set aside the decision and remitted the matter for re-hearing. The respondent was ordered to reimburse the appellant's £700 appeal fee; other costs were reserved.
ABC Production Services Ltd v Mr Andrew Hodson (VO) [2015] UKUT 15 (LC) 19 January 2015 This appeal concerned the 2010 rating valuation of Units 3–4 Stirling Industrial Centre, Borehamwood and whether the valuation should follow estate assessments or be reduced based on rental evidence. The tribunal found the rent of Unit 13 to be the most reliable comparator, allowed a modest quantum allowance of £5/m2 for the larger units, and reduced the rateable value to £11,250 (from the VTE figure of £12,500). Costs were ordered against the appellant in the net sum of £750.
Eaglesham Properties Ltd v Leaseholders of Flats 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 12 Drysdale Dwellings & Others [2015] UKUT 22 (LC) 16 January 2015 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier/Upper Tribunal had jurisdiction to interpret earlier court-appointed management orders as part of lessees’ applications and whether those orders authorised a manager to recover from the freeholder sums equivalent to leasehold service charges under clause 5(2). The Upper Tribunal held the tribunal could decide the construction issue as a preliminary matter where a live question in the proceedings depended on interpretation of earlier orders, and that the orders could sensibly be read to require Eaglesham to pay service charges to the manager. The appeal was dismissed and the manager’s and respondents’ costs application was refused.
JANE A BERRY (VALUATION OFFICER) v ICELAND FOODS LIMITED [2015] UKUT 14 (LC) 14 January 2015 The case concerned whether a bespoke air handling system (AHS) serving an Iceland retail warehouse fell within Class 2 exemption for plant “used mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing operations or trade processes.” The Tribunal held that “trade processes” should be read with “manufacturing operations” and ordinarily denotes activity effecting a change of state, so the AHS (serving display/storage/environment in a retail warehouse) was not within the exemption and is rateable. The Tribunal decapitalised the agreed AHS capital cost at 5% using the contractor’s basis (with adjustments to avoid double counting), fixed the hereditament’s rateable value at £104,000 from 1 April 2010, and ordered Iceland to pay the Valuation Officer’s costs.
SHARAD N KOTECHA v ANDREW MCKILLOP (VO) [2015] UKUT 3 (LC) 14 January 2015 This appeal concerned the 2005 rating assessment for a 430.01 sqm two‑storey retail unit (Unit 21A) in Churchgate Centre, Hitchin, focusing on the appropriate Zone A rate and end allowances. The Lands Chamber preferred a base Zone A rate of £210/sqm for the larger units in the centre, applied a composite end allowance of 20% (for narrowness and shared rear access) and rejected several of the appellant's specific devaluations. The appeal was allowed and the assessment reduced to RV £18,250 from 1 April 2005; no costs order was made.
JAMES GALLAGHER v (1) DR M G READ & PARTNERS (2) DR J POYSER & PARTNERS [2015] UKUT 1 (LC) 12 January 2015 This appeal concerned valuation of three purpose-built GP surgeries in Sheffield and whether CMRs and DRRS-related lease rents constituted reliable open-market comparables under the rating hypothesis. The Tribunal held that those rents were often appraisal-linked and not demonstrably equivalent to rents arising from free negotiation, so they could not safely be used; the contractor's basis valuations at the VTE were therefore upheld. The appeal was dismissed.
ROSSLYN MANSIONS TENANTS’ ASSOCIATION v WINSTONWORTH LIMITED [2015] UKUT 11 (LC) 12 January 2015 This appeal concerned the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to grant a s.29 certificate recognising the Rosslyn Mansions Tenants’ Association. The Upper Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and allowed it, finding the F-tT wrongly treated non-statutory guidance suggesting a 60% supporter threshold as determinative and failed to consider the proportion of variable service charges borne by supporters and the history of management complaints. The F-tT decision was quashed and the matter remitted for rehearing with provision for evidence and representations.
Jeanna Gater v Wellington Real Estates Ltd [2014] UKUT 561 (LC) 18 December 2014 This appeal concerned leaseholders challenging Wellington's apportionment of service charges under a head "White Lease" and the First‑tier Tribunal's approach. The UT held that provisions purporting to vest determination of the fair proportion in the landlord or its surveyor are void to the extent that they oust the tribunal under s.27A(6) and that the First‑tier Tribunal had asked the wrong question by confining itself to the reasonableness of Wellington's method. The UT allowed the appeal, set aside the FTT decision and remitted the matter for re‑determination on the correct legal basis that the tribunal must determine the fair apportionment if parties cannot agree.
OLUBUNMI JOHN v London Borough of Southwark [2014] UKUT 538 (LC) 9 December 2014 This appeal determined compensation for Ms Olubunmi John's 125-year leasehold of 28 Wolverton, Aylesbury Estate, as at valuation date 21 August 2013. The Tribunal assessed competing expert valuations, adjusted on-estate comparables for scheme blight, and fixed open market value at £184,000. It allowed reasonable pre-reference surveyor fees of £1,750 plus VAT, declined any separate disturbance award for lack of evidence, and confirmed a 10% home loss payment and agreed conveyancing costs. Costs were reserved with directions following sealed offers.
Assethold Limited v MR N M WATTS [2014] UKUT 537 (LC) 8 December 2014 This appeal concerned whether a landlord could recover legal costs of obtaining an interim injunction in a party wall dispute through the service charge. The Tribunal held that the repairing clause (Schedule 1, para 1) and paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 did not cover solicitor/counsel costs, but that the broad Schedule 1, paragraph 6 "acts, matters and things" provision did permit recovery of reasonably and properly incurred legal costs to preserve the building's maintenance, safety, amenity or administration. The landlord was allowed to include Greenwood & Co.'s 2011 fees of £50,936.12 (and the surveyor fees) in the 2011 service charge; other years and appeal costs were left open.
MERIE BIN MAHFOUZ COMPANY (UK) LIMITED v BARRIE HOUSE (FREEHOLD) LIMITED [2014] UKUT 390 (LC) 8 December 2014 This appeal concerned whether certain units could be the subject of leasebacks following a collective enfranchisement claim in respect of Barrie House. The Upper Tribunal held a unit must exist as such at the relevant date and refused leasebacks for Flat 1A, the porter's flat and a basement office because those units either did not exist or incorporated common parts at the relevant date. The Tribunal upheld leasebacks for the O2 and Orange telecoms premises and substituted corrected valuation figures.
(1) PORTLAND STONE FIRMS LIMITED (2) STONE FIRMS LIMITED v Dorset County Council [2014] UKUT 527 (LC) 4 December 2014 This case concerns compensation under section 107 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 following a modification order made by Dorset County Council imposing conditions on longstanding Portland quarry permissions after SAC designation. The Tribunal held that, in assessing loss under s.107, the correct counterfactual is the claimant's real position absent the modification order but taking account of existing statutory processes at the valuation date — in particular the outstanding ROMP application and Schedule 13 regime — and that those matters are therefore legally relevant to valuation and causation. The Tribunal also decided it had no power under rule 10(6)(b) to order costs for the preliminary issues; other procedural questions were reserved.
LAMBETH WALK DAY NURSERY LIMITED v MISS SAMANTHA BRAVO (VALUATION OFFICER) [2014] UKUT 530 (LC) 4 December 2014 This appeal concerned a rating assessment where the appellant repeatedly refused to permit the Valuation Officer to inspect nursery premises despite multiple Tribunal directions and warnings. The Tribunal struck out the appeal under rule 8(3) for failure to comply with directions and dismissed the appellant’s application for reinstatement; the appellant was ordered to pay the VO’s costs.
ST STEPHENS MANSIONS RTM COMPANY LIMITED v (1)FAIRHOLD NW LIMITED (2) OM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2014] UKUT 541 (LC) 4 December 2014 This appeal concerned two RTM claims for adjacent blocks sharing a single water supply. The Upper Tribunal held (1) the landlord’s counter-notices to the St James claim were not invalidated by a naming error because a reasonable recipient would understand their effect and they were to the like effect of the prescribed form, and (2) St Stephens qualified as a "self-contained part of a building" under s.72(3)-(4) because independent services could be provided by works that would not cause significant interruption. Both RTM companies were held entitled to acquire the right to manage their respective blocks.
JOHN WARDLAW HANBURY-TENISON v MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2014] UKUT 531 (LC) 2 December 2014 This appeal concerned a preliminary issue on valuation of compulsory acquisition of shooting rights over two fields taken to enable relocation of Abergavenny livestock market and town‑centre redevelopment. The Tribunal held that any significant premium over the intrinsic sporting value that derived solely from the Council's redevelopment scheme must be disregarded under the Pointe Gourde principle, and rejected the claimant's counterfactual reconstruction that a private developer would have produced the same enhancement. Quantum was left to be agreed or determined in light of that conclusion.
OLUFEMI ADEMAYOWA JOSHUA v London Borough of Southwark [2014] UKUT 511 (LC) 27 November 2014 This case fixed compensation for compulsory acquisition of a one‑bed flat on the Aylesbury Estate, determining its open market leasehold value as at 7 May 2013 and the recoverable pre‑reference surveyor’s fees. The Tribunal found the flat’s value to be £129,000 and awarded recoverable pre‑reference surveyor’s fees of £3,500 plus VAT. The acquiring authority was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the reference on the standard basis.
ANTHONY LIVESEY v LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2014] UKUT 501 (LC) 19 November 2014 This appeal concerned a Part 1 Land Compensation Act claim for depreciation in value to 77 Preston Road following A6/A674 roundabout works, focusing on whether the contiguous paddock suffered diminution, the property's switched-off value, and the percentage diminution. The tribunal accepted joint technical (Jacobs) reports, found the switched-off value to be £790,000 (house plus paddock), held the paddock was reduced in value to the same extent as the rest of the property, assessed a 9.5% diminution and awarded £75,000 plus costs and interim costs payment directions.
THE ANCHOR TRUST v MR TOM CORBETT (and Others) [2014] UKUT 510 (LC) 19 November 2014 This appeal concerned whether Anchor Trust could recover, via service charges, the cost of upgrading a hard‑wired fire alarm system at a retirement complex by spreading £57,311 as £8.85pcm per unit over 15 years. The LVT had held the works and consultation complied with the 1985 Act but implied a common‑law "fair and reasonable" term to disallow the charge. The Upper Tribunal allowed Anchor's appeal, holding the charge recoverable under the tenancy agreements and statutory scheme and quashing the LVT's s.20C order.
Andrew Parissis v Blair Court St Johns Wood Management Limited 11 November 2014 This appeal concerned whether two tenant applications under section 27A challenging service charges for 2001–2005 were time-barred. The First-tier Tribunal (LVT) had held them out of time for unreasonable delay and prejudice, and that section 21 (conversion) did not apply. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the applications were not barred by section 19 of the Limitation Act 1980 and remitting the applications to the First-tier Tribunal for determination on the merits; it also ordered the respondent to pay £225 of the appellant’s fee.
Assethold Limited v 37 WHATMAN ROAD RTM COMPANY LIMITED [2014] UKUT 505 (LC) 11 November 2014 This appeal concerned whether a second Right to Manage (RTM) claim notice served on 17 September 2013 was invalid because an earlier claim notice remained "in force" under s.81(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Upper Tribunal held that a tribunal's prior determination that a first notice was invalid did not automatically remove its "in force" status; the matter was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to decide whether a 10 September 2013 letter validly withdrew the first notice under s.86(2). If that letter did validly withdraw the first notice, the second notice may stand; if not, the second notice was invalid. Appeal allowed in part and remitted for factual determination on the withdrawal issue.
NICOLA JANE JOHNSON (VO) v H & B FOODS LTD [2014] UKUT 458 (LC) 10 November 2014 This appeal concerned whether two physically separate buildings used by H & B Foods Ltd (Nos. 32 and 44 Stewarts Road), separated by a public highway, constituted one hereditament and, if so, the correct rateable value. The Tribunal found the buildings formed a single hereditament because their functional interdependence was essential to the business, fixed a basic rate and other valuation elements, and determined a merged rateable value of £282,500 with effect from 1 April 2005. The appeal on the hereditament issue was dismissed; only costs remained to be decided.
R BONNELL (DECEASED) W K MORGAN v Carmarthenshire County Council [2014] UKUT 413 (LC) 10 November 2014 The Upper Tribunal allowed two s.18 appeals against Carmarthenshire County Council’s certificates for land at Abernant Farm (Bonnell) and Dolwerdd (Morgan), cancelling the council’s CAADs and issuing positive certificates identifying specified areas for residential development (at 33 units/ha: 38 units Bonnell; 57 units Morgan) and a limited industrial area on part of Bonnell. The Tribunal held that the council’s assessment had been wrong in the "no scheme" world and directed the council to pay the appellants’ costs on an indemnity basis.
Hamish G Johnston & Ors v TAG Farnborough Airport Limited [2014] UKUT 490 (LC) 6 November 2014 This appeal concerned applications under rule 10 to limit future recoverable costs in two linked Land Compensation Act injurious-affection references against TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd. The Tribunal refused a protective costs order in the Dandy test case but, in the larger Johnston group, capped recoverable claimant base costs at £4,000 per property to the conclusion of the preliminary issues and ordered a reciprocal cap on respondent recovery; CFA uplift was excluded from the reciprocal cap. Costs of the joint application were apportioned between the parties (Johnston claimants paid by respondent; Dandy claimants to pay respondent).
Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Accordway Limited Stella Kateb [2014] UKUT 486 (LC) 28 October 2014 This appeal concerned whether a "competent landlord" under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 can agree terms with a tenant that bind an intermediate landlord who had served a Schedule 11 paragraph 7(1) notice to be separately represented. The Upper Tribunal held that service of para 7(1) does not prevent the competent landlord, under s40(2) and Sch 11 para 6, from reaching an agreement with the tenant that binds intermediate landlords, and that the grant of the lease on 15 August 2013 completed the s42 process and deprived the First-tier Tribunal of jurisdiction. The appellant’s Human Rights arguments were rejected and the appeal was allowed.
G PARK SKELMERSDALE LIMITED v ELECTRICITY NORTH WEST LIMITED [2014] UKUT 456 (LC) 21 October 2014 This case concerned construction of a 1967 deed granting electricity rights and a covenant to pay compensation if planning permission for "residential or industrial purposes" was obtained, and the correct valuation date for that compensation. The Upper Tribunal held that "industrial purposes" is wide enough to include primary storage and distribution (Class B8) and that the valuation date was 15 May 2007, the date on which reserved matters approval enabling implementation was obtained. The claimant was awarded its costs of the preliminary issues.
CLARISE PROPERTIES LIMITED v (1) RACHEL EMILY REES (2) JAMES JOHN REES [2014] UKUT 394 (LC) 14 October 2014 This appeal concerned how to implement a rent review clause in a 1991 long lease when valuing the landlord's reversion under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT's approach that the reviewed rent should be the rent that would be agreed in a hypothetical open market and that valuation may properly be informed by sale values of comparable vacant plots (with decapitalisation permissible), dismissed procedural and other challenges, and awarded the freehold to the tenants at the parties' agreed "market" valuation of £10,530.
MRS OLIVE EDWARDS v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council [2014] UKUT 435 (LC) 14 October 2014 This appeal challenged Rhondda Cynon Taff CBC’s refusal to issue a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) for tipping/land‑reclamation on land compulsorily acquired for the Church Village Bypass. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashed the council’s negative certificate and issued a positive CAAD, holding the proposed tipping/land‑reclamation would have been acceptable in planning terms against the relevant local plan policies as at the material date (15 Dec 2005). The Tribunal treated national guidance (PPW/TAN21) as a material consideration but held it did not displace clear local plan provisions.
THE JAM FACTORY FREEHOLD LIMITED v Mr SAM BOND [2014] UKUT 443 (LC) 7 October 2014 The case concerns whether a comprehensive Compromise Agreement of 11 October 2011 between the freeholder and 16 leaseholders extinguished the parties’ pre-existing statutory (ss.27A/20C) and lease-based rights to challenge service charge arrears for 2006–2011. The First-tier Tribunal held, and the Upper Tribunal agreed on appeal, that the Agreement objectively constituted a permanent settlement replacing those rights with contractual obligations and so ousted further LVT jurisdiction and liability under the leases in respect of the disputed arrears. The appeal was dismissed.
QUEENSBRIDGE INVESTMENT LIMITED v 61 QUEENS GATE FREEHOLD LIMITED [2014] UKUT 437 (LC) 6 October 2014 This appeal concerned whether the freeholder could be required to accept leasebacks of flats A, 8 and 9 after it granted new long leases of those flats during the enfranchisement proceedings, and the effect on the price payable for the freehold. The Tribunal allowed amendment, held it had jurisdiction to decide the point, found the freeholder was entitled to grant the new leases and that because those flats were held by qualifying tenants leasebacks could not be insisted upon, and applied the LVT’s previously quantified reduction of £46,035, giving a price of £173,085.
(1) FRIENDS LIFE LIMITED (2) THE HALLIARD PROPERTY CO LIMITED v M.L. JONES [2014] UKUT 422 (LC) 30 September 2014 This appeal concerned whether payment of completion monies by the tenant on 22 March 2013 amounted to acceptance of solicitors' fees, thereby ousting the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal had found there was no agreement as to costs and retained jurisdiction; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding the payment operated as security under section 56(3) and did not objectively evidence acceptance of the stated fees. The matter of the solicitors' costs was to be further determined by the LVT.
SOLARBETA MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD v MS ADETINUKE AKINDELE [2014] UKUT 416 (LC) 30 September 2014 This appeal concerned whether a tenant-owned management company could recover (via a fixed percentage service charge) lift maintenance costs and the company directors' incidental expenses from a leaseholder who had no use of the lift. The Upper Tribunal held both categories recoverable in principle: the lift costs as part of the Management Company's Fourth Schedule obligations and directors' expenses as reasonable administration costs under clause 6.2/6.2.1 or Fourth Schedule paras 3/9. The finding of recoverability is subject to reasonableness and proper accounting/reconciliation.
ADRIAN ALLEN WALKER v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2014] UKUT 421 (LC) 24 September 2014 This appeal concerned assessment of compensation for compulsory acquisition of 8 Redearth Street, Darwen, valuing the property as at 28 March 2008 and determining disturbance. The Tribunal accepted a market value of £106,000, awarded a 10% home loss payment (£10,600), allowed limited disturbance of £700, and ordered statutory interest; other disturbance claims were rejected and no costs were awarded.
WINDERMERE COURT KENLEY RTM COMPANY LIMITED v Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited [2014] UKUT 420 (LC) 17 September 2014 The appeal concerned whether an RTM claim notice served 29 August 2013 that fixed 30 September 2013 as the s.80(6) response date could validly specify 31 December 2013 as the s.80(7) acquisition date. The First‑Tier Tribunal had held the notice invalid, but the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, applying the corresponding‑date rule and holding that specifying 31 December 2013 satisfied s.80(7) so the claim notice was valid.
MR RAYMOND OATES MRS DOREEN OATES v HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS [2014] UKUT 409 (LC) 16 September 2014 This appeal concerned how to apportion a single sale price of £725,000 between a farmhouse (dwelling) and adjoining commercial land for s.222 TCGA 1992 purposes. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' untested expert report, found the respondent's valuation method flawed in parts, and after applying existing-use value and marriage‑value reasoning under VOA guidance determined a just and reasonable apportionment of £325,000 to the house and £400,000 to the land. The appeals therefore succeeded and no costs order was made under the simplified procedure.
GARRICK ESTATE LIMITED v ROGER HENRY BALCHIN 11 September 2014 This is an appeal by the freeholder landlord against an LVT decision refusing a small on-account service charge demanded to meet expenditure anticipated in the next service-charge year. The lease wording permitted recovery of expenditure "incurred or to be incurred," and the judge allowed the appeal, holding the landlord entitled to claim on-account sums for future anticipated expenditure subject to reasonableness and fitting the lease categories. A supplemental costs order required the tenant to pay £550 to the landlord.
CASTLE ROCK 2002 MANAGEMENT LIMITED v MRS VALERIE JEFFERY MRS VALERIE JEFFERY [2014] UKUT 400 (LC) 10 September 2014 This appeal concerned whether service charges could recover costs for patio works and for a retaining wall at an 11‑flat development. The Tribunal held the patio works were to common parts (works beneath the demised surface) and so recoverable, but the retaining wall was carried out mainly for aesthetic reasons, not reasonably incurred and therefore not recoverable; the LVT order denying recovery of the wall works and awarding section 20C costs was upheld.
ELIM COURT RTM CO LTD ASSETHOLD LIMITED SINCLAIR GARDENS INVESTMENTS (KENSINGTON) LIMITED v AVON FREEHOLDS LTD 369 UPLAND ROAD RTM COMPANY LTD & CANADIAN AVENUE RTM COMPANY LTD FARNBOROUGH ROAD (CALLOWAY HOUSE) RTM COMPANY LIMITED (2) FARNBOROUGH ROAD (BRAND HOUSE) RTM COMPANY LIMITED [2014] UKUT 397 (LC) 10 September 2014 This appeal bundle concerns five RTM claims and three recurring questions: whether the three inspection days in a s78(5)(b) invitation must include a Saturday or Sunday, whether claim notices signed by an individual director of a company secretary comply with Companies Act s44 and the prescribed-form requirement, and whether a claim notice must be served on an intermediate landlord under s79(6). The Upper Tribunal held that s78(5)(b) requires at least one weekend day and failure to specify one is non‑compliant and fatal unless substantial compliance (meeting Parliament’s objective) is shown; that the claim notices signed by Mr Joyner as an individual director validly constituted signatures on behalf of the RTM companies; and that failure to serve an intermediate landlord under s79(6) is fatal. As a result, two RTM companies (369 Upland Road and Canadian Avenue) succeeded while the Elim Court and Sinclair Gardens claims failed.
82 PORTLAND PLACE (FREEHOLD) LIMITED v Howard De Walden Estates Limited [2014] UKUT 133 (LC) 8 September 2014 This is an Upper Tribunal rehearing of an appeal against an LVT valuation for collective enfranchisement of 82 Portland Place. Issues were (1) whether leases must be valued without the benefit of the 1993 Act rights (McHale issue), (2) whether Flats E and Q were participating tenants, (3) the correct no‑Act relativity for leases with 11.82 years unexpired, and (4) whether a purchaser’s margin should be deducted from aggregate FHVP. The Tribunal followed binding authority on the McHale point, found Flats E and Q were participating, fixed no‑Act relativity at 33% (allowing 20% from the agreed real‑world 41.25%), rejected a purchaser’s margin deduction, and produced a final price.
NICHOLAS RICHARD PLOTNEK v RAJENDRA KUMAR GOVAN [2014] UKUT 332 (LC) 8 September 2014 This appeal concerned how to interpret a 2008 lease rent-review clause for 65 Lingfield Avenue and whether that clause imported the statutory valuation method in section 15(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The Upper Tribunal held the clause did not adopt the section 15(2) machinery, construed the phrase "subject to the terms of this lease" to include a hypothetical requirement to pay a premium (though not necessarily the original £170,000), and dismissed the appeal, leaving the LVT's reviewed rent of £350 p.a. and purchase price of £6,843 undisturbed.
MR JOSE AND MRS ROSA NOGUEIRA AND OTHERS v THE LORD MAYOR AND CITIZENS OF WESTMINSTER [2014] UKUT 327 (LC) 4 September 2014 This appeal concerned the First-tier Tribunal's approval of a major works charge (contract H127) where it accepted the respondent's undertakings to remedy significant defects rather than making deductions. The Upper Tribunal held the F-tT should not have accepted those undertakings in the form used and that it was inappropriate to make no reduction where defects remained; the matter was remitted for the F-tT to determine appropriate individual or global deductions and to reconsider whether dispensation should be conditional on payment of certain consultation costs (including fees for Mr Byers). The remitted issues include whether H127 covered painting/boxing-in pipework and the extent of deductions payable to each appellant.
MRS VIOLET ANN HICKS v The Coal Authority [2014] UKUT 388 (LC) 3 September 2014 This is an appeal of a subsidence claim by Mrs Hicks against the Coal Authority arising from long-wall mining near her historic farmhouse, with significant cracking first alleged in 2007. The Tribunal preferred the claimant's experts on external cracking and found on the balance of probabilities that much of the external brick skin and some internal damage was caused by mining subsidence, apportioned liability for mixed-cause defects, and awarded specified sums to insurers and the claimant. The respondent failed to discharge the burden under s.40(2) to show the damage was not due to subsidence, and the Tribunal allowed investigatory costs and apportioned repair costs accordingly.
R3 PRODUCTS LTD v JAMES R SALT [2014] UKUT 333 (LC) 3 September 2014 This appeal concerned whether premises taken on lease and undergoing phased refurbishment should be deleted from the rating list or valued as unoccupied for part of the period. The Upper Tribunal held the tenant was in beneficial occupation from lease commencement for refurbishment purposes, the hereditament was capable of beneficial occupation, and an alternative nominal-value argument advanced by the appellant had no merit. The appeal was dismissed and the local commissioner’s decision to refuse deletion and phased reintroduction was upheld; costs were ordered against the appellant.
Robert Dickinson Mrs Sandra Dickinson v Network Rail [2014] UKUT 372 (LC) 29 August 2014 This appeal concerns a Part 1 Land Compensation Act 1973 claim by Mr and Mrs Dickinson for injurious affection allegedly caused by Network Rail works. The Dickinsons sought a Rule 10(7) order shielding them from any adverse costs; Network Rail sought to join the Dickinsons' agents, Thomson Broadbent, so costs might be pursued against them. The Tribunal refused blanket costs immunity, declined to join Thomson Broadbent, and exercised its discretion to cap Network Rail's recoverable costs from the Dickinsons at £15,000 (inclusive), with the Dickinsons ordered to pay £1,000 in agreed costs for certain earlier applications.
TOTAL FULFILMENT LOGISTICS LTD v PAUL MAY [2014] UKUT 354 (LC) 6 August 2014 This appeal concerned whether the appellant's withdrawal of an appeal shortly before a listed Simplified Procedure hearing, after the respondent had served a statement of case and an expert report, amounted to unreasonable behaviour justifying an award of abortive costs. The Tribunal found some discourtesy and poor communication by the appellant's agent but held that the conduct was not sufficiently unreasonable to depart from the Simplified Procedure's normal no-costs rule. No costs order was made and the withdrawal was permitted.
Raynmond Allen Hill, Patricia Heather Hill, Louisa Alton v Sorrento Management Association Ltd and Others [2014] UKUT 349 (LC) 31 July 2014 Leaseholders applied under s.24 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 for appointment of a manager of Sorrento Management Association (SMA). The First-tier Tribunal found some service charge items and legal costs unreasonable but refused to appoint a manager, saying there was no material breach and it was not just and convenient to make an order. The Upper Tribunal held the F-tT gave inadequate reasons for that refusal, allowed the appeal in relation to the s.24 decision and remitted the manager application to the F-tT for reconsideration.
Hilary Anne Barrett v Mrs Anne Robinson 29 July 2014 This appeal concerned whether a lease indemnity clause permitting recovery of costs "in or in contemplation of any proceedings or the preparation of any notice under section 146" entitled the landlord to recover £6,250 spent resisting tenant-initiated LVT proceedings about an insurance service charge. The Tribunal held the clause is limited to costs genuinely connected to forfeiture or preparatory steps to forfeiture (including preparing/serving a s146 notice) and that, on the facts, there was no evidence the landlord contemplated forfeiture or a s146 notice and the sum in dispute was below the statutory threshold for forfeiture. The appeal was allowed and the tenant was not liable for the £6,250.
One Housing Group Ltd v Mr Leon Lee and Others [2014] UKUT 330 (LC) 16 July 2014 This appeal concerned whether shared‑ownership sub‑underleases at Navigation Court allowed the landlord to charge an "Estate Service Charge" for 2006/07–2011/12. The First-tier Tribunal disallowed the estate charges in full because of perceived definitional uncertainty and unreliable accounting, but the Upper Tribunal held the LVT erred in its construction: the sub‑underleases incorporate the Underlease definition of "Estate", and "Block" and "Estate" denote different areas. The appeal was allowed on construction grounds and the matter was remitted to the LVT to determine what sums, if any, are reasonable and payable under section 19 (1985 Act).
Harringay Meat Traders Ltd v Greater London Authority [2014] UKUT 302 (LC) 10 July 2014 Harringay Meat Traders sought Tribunal compensation after interests in several plots vested under general vesting declarations. The preliminary issue was whether parts of the reference were time‑barred under s.10(3) of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981. The Tribunal held that the claims relating to plots 84 and 85 were out of the six‑year limitation period and struck those parts out, while requiring clarification and further particulars in respect of plot 59; the Tribunal refused to extend the statutory limitation period. Costs were ordered against the claimant.
CHRISTOPHER MILLER v NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED [2014] UKUT 264 (LC) 8 July 2014 This appeal concerned four preliminary issues about compensation after Network Rail compulsorily acquired plot 11a (a pressure relief shaft) under the Network Rail (WCML) (Stowe Hill) Order 2006. The Tribunal held the acquisition purpose under s.5(3) LCA 1961 was for using, maintaining or gaining access to the shaft as stated in article 3 of the 2006 Order, rejected the claimant's fraud and privileged-correspondence arguments, and ruled that no enhanced (Pointe Gourde-type) value or compensation for Network Rail’s alleged financial gains could be awarded. The Tribunal also held the relevant "special Act" for s.7 CPA 1965 comprises the 2006 Order together with the enabling provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992. Costs and further directions were reserved.
LATIFA KOSTA v 1) FRANCIS ANTHONY ARMSTRONG CARNWATH CBE (2) MICHAEL TREFUSIS CHAMBERLAYNE LVO (3) THE HON. JOHN HUGO TRENCHARD RUSSELL (AS TRUSTEES OF THE PHILLIMORE ESTATE) [2014] UKUT 319 (LC) 2 July 2014 This appeal concerned the correct relativity to apply to a 52.45-year lease for valuation under the Leasehold Reform provisions, with the LVT having applied 76% and the appellant urging about 87% based on hedonic regression evidence. The Upper Tribunal found that, although Dr Bracke’s hedonic models were technically competent and replicable, substantial macro concerns (implausible point estimates, curve shape and temporal/market-change issues) meant his results could not reliably assist for the 2011 valuation date. The Tribunal therefore upheld the LVT’s 76% relativity and dismissed the appeal.
MR JAMES FALLON v (1)MS SAMANTHA WILSON (2)MR CHRISTOPHER HUNT (3)MR WESLEY SHILLINGFORD [2014] UKUT 300 (LC) 1 July 2014 This appeal concerns rent repayment orders (RROs) granted against Mr Fallon for letting an unlicensed house in multiple occupation. The Upper Tribunal held the First-tier Tribunal applied the wrong test by presuming full repayment was the default and failed to exercise its discretion under s 74(5)–(6), in particular by not properly considering the landlord’s conduct and financial circumstances and by including outgoings the landlord did not benefit from. The appeal was allowed and the RROs set aside.
ONE HOUSING GROUP LIMITED v MR IAN AND MRS JANE KINGHAM (2) MS JANE BERRYMAN [2014] UKUT 231 (LC) 25 June 2014 The Upper Tribunal allowed One Housing Group's appeal in part, holding the First-tier Tribunal erred by construing "Common Parts" too narrowly and by dismissing the Barkantine Heat and Power (BHP) facilities charge without addressing lease-based defences. It decided that maintenance and renewal costs of the estate-wide BHP system can, in principle, form part of Total Expenditure recoverable from leaseholders, but remitted unresolved factual and legal questions (including any capital element and apportionment) for further determination.
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS v PETER ROBIN WOOLWAY (VALUATION OFFICER) [2014] UKUT 183 (LC) 23 June 2014 This appeal concerned the rating assessment of New Scotland Yard and procedural challenges about whether an oral settlement had taken effect and whether a later signed withdrawal of the first proposal could be treated as invalid. The tribunal held the oral agreement did not take effect because the written form made agreement conditional on signatures, but the withdrawal form signed by the Commissioner's agent and countersigned by the Valuation Officer validly withdrew the appeal; no abuse or unfairness required reinstatement. On valuation the tribunal adjusted various items (corridors, air‑conditioning, car parking, end allowance) and fixed the rateable value at £6,450,000 effective 1 April 2004.
Carpetright Plc v John Philip Ray (VO) [2014] UKUT 145 (LC) 11 June 2014 This appeal concerned the rateable value (RV) of a large Purfleet warehouse let to Carpetright in June 2007 and whether that letting or local comparable settlements should determine RV as at the antecedent valuation date (1 Feb 2008). The Tribunal held the 2007 letting was relevant but too remote and uncertain to displace contemporaneous rental/settlement evidence; it gave significant weight to a local "tone of the list", allowed a modest 5% end allowance for loading/parking and made specific adjustments for ancillary items. The RV was reduced to £3,290,000 and no order for costs was made.
QDIME LTD v (1) BATH BUILDING (SWINDON) MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD (2) VARIOUS LEASEHOLDERS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE LVT DECISION [2014] UKUT 261 (LC) 10 June 2014 This appeal concerned whether a landlord could recover the cost of terrorism insurance from leaseholders at Bath Building under a lease requiring insurance against "the usual comprehensive risks in accordance with the CML recommendations" and "such other risks as the Landlord may in its reasonable discretion think fit to insure against." The Upper Tribunal held that insurance of "the usual comprehensive risks" includes explosion risks and therefore encompasses terrorist-caused explosions, and alternatively that the landlord had validly and reasonably exercised its discretion to procure terrorism cover. The LVT's contrary findings were set aside and the Tribunal substituted a decision permitting recovery of terrorism insurance costs.
Tessa Chowdhury v Bramerton Management Company Ltd [2014] UKUT 260 (LC) 10 June 2014 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (LVT) had properly dealt with the appellant's contention that she had not been served with the written service-charge notice required by her lease and whether late documentary material could have triggered liability. The Upper Tribunal found the LVT had inadequately explained rejection of the non-receipt case but that the belated 11 November 2011 statement of account nevertheless provided written notice of the yearly sum and that any rehearing would inevitably reach the same result. The appeal was dismissed and the LVT’s determination that the service charges were payable was upheld.
The London Borough of Southwark v Samuel David Oyeyinka [2014] UKUT 258 (LC) 9 June 2014 This appeal concerned whether Southwark complied with the s.20 consultation requirements when it served stage 1 and stage 2 notices describing "window repairs/renewals" while contract documents available for inspection contained two priced alternatives (a lower provisional repair and a higher replacement). The Upper Tribunal held the notices, read with the accessible contract documents, adequately described the works so the landlord complied with the Regulations, and allowed recovery of the higher contract sums (ordering the tenant to pay the outstanding £6,054.18). The LVT’s earlier limitation of recovery to the original estimate plus 10% and its pro rata reduction were overturned.
MARIA L OGUNSEYE v THE LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM [2014] UKUT 232 (LC) 28 May 2014 This appeal assessed disturbance compensation under s.38(1)(a) Land Compensation Act 1973 after the claimant was rehoused by the London Borough of Newham. The tribunal examined each claimed replacement/repair item and awarded sums only where the move necessitated replacement and credible, reasonable evidence supported the cost, resulting in a total award of £2,207.30. Claims for several items (sofa, washing machine, wardrobe, cooker, reconnection costs, second front door, Sky connection) were rejected for lack of credible evidence or because they were not caused by the move. No costs were awarded.
Windermere Marina Village Ltd v Mr Ian Wild Mrs Gillan Lesley Barton [2014] UKUT 163 (LC) 28 May 2014 This appeal concerned whether a lease clause making the landlord’s surveyor’s apportionment of service charges "final and binding" was void under s.27A(6) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and whether the First-tier Tribunal (LVT) could substitute its own apportionment. The Upper Tribunal held the finality clause was void under s.27A(6), the LVT was entitled to determine the fair apportionment itself (and replaced the surveyor’s 1:4 split with 1:1), and dismissed the tenants’ remaining challenges including on evidence and s.20C costs. The LVT was also justified in refusing to charge the landlord’s LVT costs to the service charge.
ECONOMETRIC LIMITED BREWSTERS WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED COURTVILLE PROPERTIES LIMITED BARRY, BRIAN AND SHEILA BREWSTER v Greater London Authority [2014] UKUT 219 (LC) 22 May 2014 This consolidated reference concerned compulsory acquisition of 28 Marshgate Lane and whether an upfront £270,000 payment at the start of a 25‑year lease was a lease premium (affecting capital valuation) or a contribution to site development. The Tribunal found the payment was a contribution to development, rejected reliance on a post‑valuation Farnborough letting as insufficiently comparable, and awarded the freehold of 28 Marshgate Lane £1,400,000 plus a basic loss payment of £75,000; no profit rent claim succeeded.
(1) MARK CUTTER (2) STUART HODGKISS (3) JANICE HODGKISS (4) MARK DAWKINS v PRY LIMITED [2014] UKUT 215 (LC) 20 May 2014 This appeal challenged an LVT decision refusing to include allocated and unallocated car parking spaces and a communal gardens area in a collective enfranchisement claim, and permitting the freeholder to amend proposed rights at the hearing. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT: parking spaces were not "used in common" under s.1(3)(b), the gardens could not be acquired because tenants were prohibited by covenant from entering them despite paying for maintenance, and the LVT properly allowed amendment/offered rights in lieu under its procedural and substantive discretions. The appeal was dismissed.
DAEJAN PROPERTIES LTD v SEAN GERALD GRIFFIN ALPHONSA MATHEW [2014] UKUT 206 (LC) 14 May 2014 This appeal concerned whether a landlord could recover service-charge contributions for emergency and remedial works replacing concealed corroded steel beams and a parapet at Crown Terrace, and whether the LVT's s.20C order refusing recovery of certain pre-LVT costs was just. The Upper Tribunal held the landlord was obliged to repair, allowed recovery of the Phase 1–5 costs and related professional fees in full, set aside the LVT's s.20C order but made a limited s.20C order covering the LVT-stage costs only, and found only lessees under form E leases were contractually liable to contribute to the landlord’s legal costs.
WESTLEIGH PROPERTIES LTD v MRS J S GRIMES [2014] UKUT 213 (LC) 14 May 2014 This appeal concerned whether management, accountancy and related fees charged by the landlord's managing agent could be recovered from the lessee under a 1997 lease that limited the lessee's contribution to costs of specified repair and redecoration obligations (clauses 3(a)/(b)). The Upper Tribunal held that such fees are recoverable only to the extent they are demonstrably incurred in commissioning, administering or supervising works within those specific clauses, and on the facts (no relevant works in 2009–2012) the claimed management and related fees were not recoverable; the appeal was dismissed.
PETER GILL v NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL [2014] UKUT 195 (LC) 8 May 2014 The appellant challenged Nottingham City Council’s HMO licence decision and the Rent Repayment Tribunal’s finding that his informal 30 March 2012 letter was not a valid, timely appeal. The Upper Tribunal held the letter, though not fully compliant with regulation 6(1), met the conditions of regulation 6(4) and therefore constituted a valid appeal; the RPT’s refusal to extend time was unnecessary for that reason and, on its facts, would in any event not have been disturbed. The RPT’s preliminary decision was set aside and the substantive appeal remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
NARAYAN CHANDRA CHAKRAVORTY v HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS [2014] UKUT 184 (LC) 30 April 2014 This appeal concerned the valuation on 31 March 1982 of the appellant’s leasehold interest in No. 98 Sutherland Avenue and the appellant’s undivided beneficial share. The tribunal valued the whole leasehold at £7,032 (capitalised net rent £3,267 plus marriage value £3,765) and held the appellant’s beneficial share was 50% subject to a 10% discount for lack of control, giving £3,164. The Freeholder/ freehold valuation put forward by the appellant was treated as irrelevant to the proper issue and untested written expert evidence was given little weight.
British Car Auctions Ltd T/A Blackbushe Airport v Ken I Hazell (VO) [2014] UKUT 164 (LC) 28 April 2014 This appeal concerned the rateable value of Blackbushe Airport (effective 23 December 2005) under the contractor's basis. The tribunal held that the modern substitute must reflect the hereditament's actual use (rebus sic stantibus), fixed a substitute runway of 1,335 m by 30 m with specified taxiways included/excluded, applied allowances (including 50% superfluity on paved areas and a 30% stage 5 end allowance) and determined a final RV of £82,000, with the Valuation Officer ordered to pay the appellant's costs.
The Keepers and Governors of the Possessions Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon v Karen Alamouti [2014] UKUT 87 (LC) 28 April 2014 This appeal concerned valuation for enfranchisement of three freeholds in Hamilton Terrace where comparables were sparse and experts disagreed on methodology. The Tribunal set FHVPs at £10.75m (No.70), £7.75m (No.110) and £6.75m (No.106) and derived enfranchisement prices accordingly, rejecting an optimistic short‑term "development hope" valuation for No.106 as too speculative. Parts of the landlord's and tenants' appeals were allowed and dismissed as recorded in the outcome.
Thomas & Davies (Merthyr Tydfil) v Ms Susan Denly (VO) [2014] UKUT 146 (LC) 28 April 2014 This appeal challenged a Valuation Tribunal decision fixing a rateable value of £78,500 for a car showroom, with the appellants arguing that, as at the antecedent valuation date (1 April 2008), the property was in such disrepair that repairs would have been uneconomic and the RV should be reduced. The Tribunal found most 2012–13 works were repairs (with some elements being improvements), accepted the parties’ agreed AVD repair cost (£442,431) and concluded a hypothetical landlord would have regarded the repairs as economic. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were ordered.
SHAW’S TRAILER PARK (HARROGATE) v (1)MS LYNN NICHOL-HUGHES (2)MR P SHEWOOD (3)MR M SPIVEY (4)MR M CLOAKE [2014] UKUT 181 (LC) 23 April 2014 This appeal concerned whether a printed notice dated 3 March 2012 increasing pitch fees at Shaw’s Trailer Park was an ineffective demand because it omitted the owner’s name and address under Schedule 1 paras 26–27 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The Upper Tribunal held the notice was a written proposal under para 17(2), not a demand creating liability, and allowed the appeal on that ground. The UT also held that para 26(3) requires that a proposal notice contain the owner’s name and address and that omission renders the notice treated as not given until the information is supplied. The UT refused a late application for permission to appeal a separate 80p/week electricity charge.
Ground Rents (Regisport) Ltd v (1) MR HAMISH DOWLEN (2) MR ANDREW GREENE (3) MR WILLIAM ROSE [2014] UKUT 144 (LC) 22 April 2014 This appeal concerned whether historic Thames Water bills first presented to the freeholder in 2010 could be recovered from leaseholders as service charges and whether s.20B(1) Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 barred recovery of amounts incurred more than 18 months before the landlord's demand. The Upper Tribunal held for s.20B purposes that costs are "incurred" when the landlord for the time being becomes liable (normally when a bill is presented to that landlord), so the appellant did not incur liability until it received the invoices in 2010, and allowed the appeal on that point. The Tribunal also held that the lease’s certification clause did not prevent the landlord from including expenditure actually incurred in a later year in a later certificate. Quantification of sums payable was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
MR J. REEVES (VALUATION OFFICER) v TUNNEL TECH LIMITED [2014] UKUT 159 (LC) 7 April 2014 This appeal concerned whether Tunnel Tech Ltd's premises, producing Phase I–III mushroom substrate and selling Phase III mycelium-containing product, qualified as "agricultural land" or "agricultural buildings" as a market garden or nursery for exemption under Schedule 5, LGFA 1988. The Tribunal below had treated the hereditament as a market garden; the Upper Tribunal held that the operation was not a market garden but a form of nursery/propagation and accordingly was not agricultural land or market-garden buildings, allowing the Valuation Officer's appeal and awarding costs to the VO.
Ramac Holdings Limited v Kent County Council [2014] UKUT 109 (LC) 3 April 2014 This case concerned compensation payable to Ramac Holdings for compulsory acquisition of a 7,709 sqm roadside/landscape strip under the East Kent Access Phase 1C CPO and related claims for injurious affection, disturbance, pre-reference costs, betterment and costs. The Tribunal held the reference land must be valued on the hypothetical sale of that parcel alone and assessed it as amenity/roadside land at £38,545 (an alternative industrial valuation of £245,000 was also assessed); injurious affection was not established, disturbance and pre-reference costs were awarded, no betterment deduction under s.261 Highways Act 1980 was made, and total compensation was fixed at £67,008.26 plus interest with a detailed apportionment of costs reflecting the acquiring authority’s unreasonable conduct on the betterment issue.
Red Kite Community Housing Limited v Ms Jennifer Robertson [2014] UKUT 134 (LC) 24 March 2014 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) gave adequate reasons and improperly relied on its own knowledge or experience when it reduced Red Kite’s cleaning/estate charge for December 2011–April 2013. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT erred by not giving Red Kite an opportunity to address the Tribunal’s apparent reliance on its own knowledge/experience and by failing to explain how it treated Red Kite’s evidence. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the LVT for reconsideration of the estate costs for the stated period.
David Mosche Halpern Patrick William Gladwell Clearun Limited Dominion Mosaic & Tile Company Ltd v Greater London Authority [2014] UKUT 116 (LC) 18 March 2014 This case concerns compensation after compulsory acquisition of Clearun Wharf under the LDA CPO, chiefly whether planning permission should be assumed under LCA 1961 s.16(3) or whether s.14(3) "hope value" or existing use value applied, and the quantification of disturbance to the business. The Tribunal held the site was not an "allocation" under s.16(3), applied an existing use valuation uplifted by a 15% hope premium (giving a land value of £2,127,500), rejected total business extinguishment, and awarded total compensation of £2,580,747 with a specified costs order.
BMC Properties and Management Ltd v David Jackson (VO) [2014] UKUT 93 (LC) 11 March 2014 This appeal concerned the effective date for an alteration to add an omitted hereditament (8 Collingham Road) to the 2005 non-domestic rating list. The issue was whether regulation 14(2) requires the effective date to be the date the underlying change (use) first occurred or can be the date the list was compiled if the list was inaccurate when compiled. The Upper Tribunal agreed with the Valuation Tribunal and the Valuation Officer that the effective date could be the compilation date, 1 April 2005, and dismissed the appellant's appeal, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent's costs.
G & O Investments Limited v Naznin Khan [2014] UKUT 96 (LC) 26 February 2014 This appeal concerned the construction of clause 6(b) of a 1987 lease: whether service of service-charge demands had to be by registered/recorded post exclusively and whether a 48‑hour deeming rule applied to ordinary post. The LVT had held the clause mandatory and invalidated demands sent by ordinary post; the Upper Tribunal allowed the landlord’s appeal, holding the clause permissive and that "post" in the deeming provision includes ordinary post (deemed served 48 hours after posting). As a result the LVT’s mandatory-construction outcome was overturned.
S & J Monk v Keith Newbigin (VO) [2014] UKUT 14 (LC) 26 February 2014 This appeal concerned whether the first-floor offices at Avalon House should be entered in the rating list at a nominal £1 because refurbishment works had rendered the hereditament incapable of beneficial occupation. The UT held the material day for a list alteration proposal was 6 January 2012 (the day the proposal was served) but found that on that day the physical state showed works had gone beyond repair so the repair assumption did not require reinstatement. The list was altered to a £1 entry as "building undergoing reconstruction" with effect from 1 April 2010; the appellant was awarded costs.
Samantha Tibber v Declan Buckley and Matthew Wilcox [2014] UKUT 74 (LC) 19 February 2014 This appeal concerned the proper scope of a leaseback claimed by the freeholder (Flat C) when the long leaseholders sought to buy the freehold of 32 Petherton Road and the freeholder served a counter‑notice. The questions were whether the LVT’s two-stage process and interim oral indication produced procedural unfairness, and whether the freeholder could extend the leaseback beyond the areas specified in the counter‑notice. The UT dismissed the appeal, holding there was no serious or prejudicial procedural irregularity, the appellant was bound by the areas specified in the counter‑notice, and the LVT correctly rejected proposed departures and adopted standard Part IV, Schedule 9 terms limited to the existing Flat C with rights over common parts.
Proxima GP Prop Ltd v Dr Thomas D McGhee [2014] UKUT 59 (LC) 6 February 2014 This appeal considered whether a landlord may charge for consenting to an tenant's underletting and for registering an underlease, and whether the sums demanded were reasonable. The Upper Tribunal held the First-tier Tribunal was wrong to deny the landlord's entitlement to charge; on the facts £95 (including VAT) was a reasonable sum for considering the consent application and the LVT's section 20C order was set aside. The Tribunal also analysed the statutory basis (s.19(1)(a) of the 1927 Act and Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act) for such charges.
Trustees of the John Jackson Charitable v Mr and Mrs J E Hornblower and Mr and Mrs A E Davis [2014] UKUT 21 (LC) 4 February 2014 This appeal challenged a Rent Assessment Committee’s unexplained £200 per quarter deduction for tenants’ internal decorating liability when fixing fair rent. The First-tier Tribunal judge held that failing to give any reasons for that deduction was an error of law and remitted the matter to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for reconsideration. The appeal therefore succeeded and the committee’s decisions were set aside and returned for re-determination.
Columbia House Properties (No.3) Ltd v IMPERIAL HALL RTM COMPANY LIMITED [2014] UKUT 30 (LC) 30 January 2014 This appeal concerned a landlord's s.88 costs claim for managing-agent fees incurred in relation to three right-to-manage claim notices; the LVT had rejected the claim for lack of evidence and as unreasonable. The Upper Tribunal found the LVT was wrong to conclude the landlord had not incurred or shown liability for the managing agent's work and that the LVT had failed to give adequate reasons for treating all claimed costs as unreasonable. The UT allowed the appeal, set aside the LVT decision and remitted the s.88 claim for redetermination.
Fencott Ltd v Fencott Ltd v Lyttelton Court RTM Company Ltd [2014] UKUT 27 (LC) 28 January 2014 This appeal concerned whether a single right-to-manage (RTM) company may acquire the statutory right to manage more than one self-contained building and related questions about competing RTM companies at Lyttelton Court. The Upper Tribunal held that the 2002 Act permits an RTM company to seek and acquire the right to manage multiple self-contained buildings, that prior incorporation of a properly constituted estate-wide RTM company can preclude later-formed block RTM companies under s73(4), and that successful landlords are entitled under s88(1) to recover reasonable costs caused by claim notices. The LVT decision was set aside to the extent it had rejected the estate company and upheld the block companies; quantification of costs and final determination of the estate company’s claim were left to the appropriate tribunal.
SUSSEX VILLAS LIMITED v Dr Huimin Wan and Neil Raine Harrison [2014] UKUT 29 (LC) 28 January 2014 This appeal concerned whether paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of Part 2 of the Sixth Schedule authorised recovery from tenants of a one‑third share of a landlord's claimed £24,500 "reserve" for major works. The Upper Tribunal held paragraph 2(a) permits recovery of reasonably estimated expenditure for the forthcoming year, paragraph 2(b) provides for an annual contribution to a reserve smoothing aggregate charges, and the 2009 reserve must be credited, fixing tenant liability for the year ending 24 December 2010 at £8,024.04. The LVT's order requiring tenants to pay the landlord's costs was set aside and the tenants were not required to contribute to those costs.
PAS PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED v MR & MRS S D HAYES [2014] UKUT 26 (LC) 27 January 2014 This appeal concerned whether a landlord could recover the cost of gas used by a common heating system (CHS) via a pooled leasehold service charge for all flats. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT: the service charge wording did not authorise pooled charging of CHS gas used to heat individual flats, although gas for heating common parts may be recoverable as a Part II Service; gas consumed within individual flats is recoverable under the Fourth Schedule paragraph 2.3 by reimbursement and, on the evidence, must be apportioned by measured (metered) consumption. The appeal was dismissed and limited costs awarded to the tenants.
(1) MR J SMALL (2) MRS B SMALL (3) MR J SMALL (JUNIOR) T/A J & B SMALL PARK HOMES v MR TALBOT AND OTHERS [2014] UKUT 15 (LC) 15 January 2014 The appeal concerned whether written notices proposing new park-home pitch fees under the 1983 Act were effective when they stated an incorrect current pitch fee. The Upper Tribunal upheld the Residential Property Tribunal's decision that notices which stated an incorrect current fee were inadequate to trigger the statutory review process and were invalid insofar as they purported to impose a 4% increase from 1 January 2012. The 4% increase therefore applied only to occupiers who had received notices showing the correct current fee.
Albion Residential Limited. Albion Commercial Ltd. Albion Properties Ltd v Albion Riverside Residents RTM Company Limited [2014] UKUT 6 (LC) 14 January 2014 This appeal concerned an RTM claim for the "Main Building" at Albion Riverside and whether that building was a "self‑contained building" (structurally detached) under ss72(1)(a) and (2) of the 2002 Act. The Tribunal held the Main Building was not structurally detached because continuous basement slabs, cores and struts made it integral with surrounding structures, so the RTM claim failed. The Tribunal also held a landlord may raise such a jurisdictional objection even if it was not specified in its s84 counter‑notice. The LVT's decision that the RTM company was entitled to acquire the right to manage was set aside and the appellants were entitled to recover reasonable costs under s88(1).
Julie May QUANG THINH TRUONG v GOSPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL [2013] UKUT 632 (LC) 8 January 2014 This appeal concerned valuation and compensation for two long leasehold maisonettes compulsorily acquired under a 2010 CPO in a precinct undergoing scheme-driven decline. The Tribunal held the local market was failing and preferred the acquiring authority's evidence, fixing leasehold values at £34,000 (No.51) and £31,750 (No.52) and awarding specified disturbance and surveyor's fees. The Tribunal rejected reliance on portfolio settlement prices as reliable comparables without adjustment. No costs were ordered.
MISS E PADMORE v THE OFFICIAL CUSTODIAN FOR CHARITIES ON BEHALF OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE BARRY AND PEGGY HIGH FOUNDATION [2013] UKUT 646 (LC) 31 December 2013 This appeal concerns the valuation for enfranchisement of 11/11A Lancaster Avenue under Schedule 6 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, specifically whether development value is to be treated as "hope value" under paragraph 3, as part of "marriage value" under paragraph 4, or neither. The Upper Tribunal rejected the appellant's challenge to the LVT's agreed hypothetical assumptions but allowed the cross‑appeal, holding that where development value can be realised by the potential ability of participating tenants to obtain new or varied leases permitting combined use, that development value may form part of marriage value under paragraph 4. The cross‑appeal result set the price at £194,000.
ALEXANDER CHRISTOFOROU DIOGENIS & COSTAS DIOGENOUS v STANDARD APARTMENTS LIMITED [2013] UKUT 586 (LC) 17 December 2013 This appeal concerned whether a landlord could recover from two leaseholders the landlord's costs of 2009 LVT proceedings under a lease indemnity and whether those costs were "administration charges" subject to Schedule 11 reasonableness. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT: the costs arose directly or indirectly from the tenants' breach (withholding service charges), fell within lease clause 3.22.2, were administration charges under Schedule 11 and were reasonable and not disproportionate. The Tribunal also rejected the challenge to solicitor six‑minute timed billing as immaterial and held paragraph 10(4) Schedule 12 did not bar contractual recovery of such costs.
VRCC LIMITED v MRS AMANDA FRENCH [2013] UKUT 627 (LC) 17 December 2013 This appeal concerned the rateable value of a converted warehouse at 1 Bramston Way fitted out as a veterinary treatment centre with a Linac radiotherapy vault. The Tribunal held the hereditament must be valued in its fitted state as a veterinary facility on a net internal area basis and accepted the VO’s adopted basic rate and adjustments, resulting in an assessed RV of £74,000 from 1 April 2010. Warehouse comparables in the unit’s original industrial use were given limited weight.
KEVIN G CONWAY OLA AINA CAROL MARSHALL & ROGER GREEN SAUL GREENBERG & SAM CATHCART SAM BOND MANOJ BULSARA GEORGINA DWIGHT JULIANNE O’LEARY CHRISTOPHER SCOTT MALCOLM TORZ STEPHEN LEWIS KEVIN CONWAY SUDHA KHETERPAL SARADHA CABRAL v JAM FACTORY FREEHOLD LIMITED [2013] UKUT 592 (LC) 10 December 2013 This appeal concerned whether a resident-owned freeholder could recover legal costs of resisting a s.24 appointment-of-manager application through the service charge and whether the First-tier Tribunal (LVT) properly exercised its s.20C discretion to prevent recovery. The Upper Tribunal held the lease (clause 14.1 and Ninth Schedule) was wide enough in principle to permit recovery of properly incurred costs of resisting the s.24 application, but that the LVT had erred in its blanket s.20C order; the UT substituted a limited order excluding 10% of those costs from the service charge for the leaseholders who were parties. Directions were given for possible further s.20C submissions relating to appeal costs.
PINEVIEW LIMITED v 83 CRAMPTON STREET RTM COMPANY LIMITED [2013] UKUT 598 (LC) 4 December 2013 This appeal concerned whether an RTM Claim Notice was invalid because it was signed by the company's solicitors rather than an authorised member/officer and because it did not state whether appurtenant property was included. The Upper Tribunal dismissed both challenges, holding the notice was validly signed "by authority of the company" and that naming the self-contained building sufficed without separately specifying appurtenant property. The LVT decision that the RTM company was entitled to acquire the right to manage 83 Crampton Street was affirmed.
Assethold Limited v 13-24 ROMSIDE PLACE RTM COMPANY LIMITED [2013] UKUT 603 (LC) 28 November 2013 This appeal concerned whether a notice inviting participation (NIP) that named the wrong landlord invalidated a subsequent claim notice to acquire the right to manage. The Upper Tribunal held the NIP failed to comply with s 78 and the relevant regulations because it did not give the landlord's correct name, and that such a failure is not saved as an "inaccuracy" by s 78(7). Consequently the claim notice of 16 March 2012 was invalid and the respondent did not acquire the right to manage on that date.
Ninety Broomfield Room RTM Company v Triplerose Ltd [2013] UKUT 606 (LC) 28 November 2013 This case decided whether a single Right to Manage (RTM) company can acquire RTM for more than one self-contained building and how statutory eligibility and notice requirements operate for multi-block estates. The Upper Tribunal held that one RTM company may acquire RTM over multiple self-contained premises, but the qualifying-majority and membership tests in ss.72 and 79 must be applied separately to each set of premises; a single claim notice can suffice if it clearly establishes eligibility for each. The Tribunal applied that approach to four consolidated matters, allowing two appeals, remitting one for reconsideration, and dismissing one.
Wolfhart Gunnar Hauser v Howard De Walden Estates Limited [2013] UKUT 597 (LC) 28 November 2013 This appeal concerned the correct relativity between the agreed freehold vacant possession (FHVP) value of 11 Harley Place and the value of a 137.98‑year extended lease, given a FHVP that already reflected a substantial flying freehold. The Upper Tribunal preferred the respondent experts and the published relativity material over the appellant’s comparable analysis and held the correct relativity was 99%, dismissing the appeal. The LVT’s premium calculation based on that relativity was upheld.
Trafford Housing Trust v Mr Fazil Ahmad Sediqi [2013] UKUT 581 (LC) 22 November 2013 This appeal concerned whether consultation notices dated 16 March 2011 for a qualifying long‑term agreement were validly served and whether the statutory 30‑day consultation period began on posting, on the date printed on the notice, or on receipt. The Upper Tribunal found three leaseholders had not been served, that the notices arrived on 18 March 2011 so the 30‑day period ended 16 April 2011, and therefore the consultation period as given (ending 15 April) was one day short; the appeal was dismissed and no dispensation under s.20ZA was granted.
GPS (Great Britain) Limited v Samuel Charles David Bird (VO) [2013] UKUT 527 (LC) 21 November 2013 This appeal concerned whether the opening of the Highcross extension in Leicester on 4 September 2008 constituted a relevant material change of circumstances (MCC) affecting rateable values at Fosse Park as at the hypothetical valuation date, and if so what reduction was justified. The Tribunal found the opening was capable of being an MCC and, relying on contemporaneous retail consultants' forecasts and comparative turnover data, concluded a 10% reduction in rateable values was reasonable. The appeals were allowed and the 2005 rating list was altered effective 4 September 2008.
No.1 Deansgate (Residential) Limited v No.1 Deansgate RTM [2013] UKUT 580 (LC) 21 November 2013 The appeal concerned whether No.1 Deansgate was a "self‑contained building" under s.72(2) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 where it was abutted by neighbouring structures but only joined by non‑structural weathering features. The UT upheld the LVT's factual finding that those features provided no structural support, and rejected the appellant's submission that any touching negates "structurally detached." The appeal was dismissed and the RTM company's entitlement to acquire the right to manage was affirmed.
Ms Karen Kendrick (VO) v Mayday Optical Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 548 (LC) 12 November 2013 This appeal concerned whether a proposal to alter the 2010 rating list for 508 London Road was valid where the proposal stated the annual rent as £9,500 despite a prior formal return showing £10,000. The Upper Tribunal held the misstated rent was a substantial non‑compliance with Regulation 6(3) that caused prejudice to the Valuation Officer, rendering the proposal invalid, and that it was not unreasonable for the VO to assert invalidity at the hearing. The UT therefore allowed the VO’s appeal.
SOUTHERN LAND SECURITIES LIMITED v MR G A HODGE MR J N CARPENTER [2013] UKUT 480 (LC) 12 November 2013 This appeal concerned whether additional works to a light-well retaining wall carried out during a contracted repair scheme were covered by a prior s.20(1) stage 1 consultation notice for "external repairs and redecorations", and whether the First-tier Tribunal's reduction of the landlord's claimed additional costs to the tenant's contemporaneous builder's estimate was open to it. The Upper Tribunal held the extra works were not within the scope of the original stage 1 notice and dismissed the landlord's appeal on that point, but allowed the appeal on valuation grounds, finding the LVT had acted unfairly by relying on undeclared "knowledge and experience" and remitted valuation for reconsideration if dispensation is granted.
NICOLA JANE JOHNSON (VALUATION OFFICER) v H & B FOODS LIMITED [2013] UKUT 539 (LC) 30 October 2013 This interlocutory Upper Tribunal decision addresses whether appeals from the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE) are reheard de novo and whether the VTE had jurisdiction to determine the rateable value of a single hereditament created by merging two properties. The Tribunal held the appeal must be dealt with as a de novo rehearing, that the VTE did have jurisdiction to determine the merged hereditament’s rateable value, and that a prior compromise reached before the VTE does not bind the parties on appeal so valuation is a live issue. The Upper Tribunal permitted expert valuation evidence and made no final determination of rateable value in this interlocutory ruling.
Mr I R MacGregor v B M Samuels Finance Group Ltd [2013] UKUT 471 (LC) 21 October 2013 This appeal under s.27A LTA 1985 concerned whether specified service-charge demands (administration charges, communal electricity for 2009–10, and the 2009/10 building insurance premium) were payable by Mr MacGregor. The tribunal held it could only determine sums payable by the appellant (not order reimbursement for other leaseholders), allowed the appeal on administration charges and on the insurance demand for failure to comply with s.47 formalities (so the demand was not payable), but found the insurance premium itself had been reasonably incurred. On electricity, the tribunal reduced the charges for block A (2009–10) for incorrectly applied VAT/CCL and excessive kWh in 2010, leaving lower amounts payable by the appellant for 2009 and 2010.
Assethold Limited v 7 SUNNY GARDENS ROAD RTM COMPANY LIMITED [2013] UKUT 509 (LC) 16 October 2013 This appeal concerned whether an RTM company could acquire the right to manage where one of three qualifying long leaseholders died before incorporation. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT was wrong to treat the deceased leaseholder as remaining a qualifying tenant and a member on incorporation; her legal interest passed on death to her personal representatives, who should have been given a s78 invitation. Because the RTM company produced no evidence of lack of prejudice from non-compliance with the notice requirements, the claim to acquire the right to manage was dismissed.
PAUL ROBERT HUTCHINGS DAVID STEPHEN STEELE v NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL [2013] UKUT 506 (LC) 16 October 2013 This appeal concerned compensation for compulsory acquisition of a fire-damaged two-storey terraced house vested on 18 December 2009. The tribunal rejected the acquiring authority’s unsubstantiated refurbishment cost schedule and instead relied on comparable transactions in valuing the property. It awarded £30,500 for the freehold and a statutory home loss payment of £4,700, and declined to make any order as to costs. The tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to determine two subsidiary procedural set-off/Trustee payment issues.
JOHN DANIEL SIMON v DENBIGHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2013] UKUT 488 (LC) 15 October 2013 This appeal concerned whether a local housing authority can "withdraw" an improvement notice informally so as to defeat a recipient's right of appeal. The Upper Tribunal held that the Housing Act 2004 contains no concept of informal withdrawal and that revocation must follow s16 and Schedule 1 procedures (or the tribunal may quash a notice with the authority's consent); the council's July 2009 letter did not effect revocation, the RPT should not have cancelled the hearing on that basis, and the appeal was allowed with repayment of further appeal fees. The notice was later formally revoked in June 2012, so no quashing order was made.
WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL v KAMAL ARYA [2013] UKUT 501 (LC) 15 October 2013 This appeal concerned whether a council could recover flat-rate central administration/management charges and an insurance administration fee from a leaseholder under a standard right-to-buy lease. The Tribunal held and the Deputy President upheld that the lease did not permit levying central estate-wide administration charges for years when no services were provided to the leaseholder's building, but did permit recovery of an insurance administration fee as part of insuring the building. The appeal was dismissed as to the flat-rate central administration charges and allowed as to the £17.50 insurance administration charge.
FAIRHOLD (YORKSHIRE) LIMITED v TRINTIY WHARF (SE16) RTM CO LIMITED [2013] UKUT 502 (LC) 7 October 2013 This appeal concerned whether a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) deciding an RTM application was limited to grounds pleaded in the landlord’s counter-notice and whether the tribunal had properly satisfied itself that required notices of invitation to participate had been validly given in the prescribed form. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT was wrong to confine its jurisdiction to the counter-notice, and that it must ensure statutory procedural requirements (including production and compliance of notices of invitation under s.78 and the 2010 Regulations) have been met before upholding an RTM claim. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for redetermination.
FAIRHOLD MERCURY LIMITED v HQ (BLOCK 1) ACTION MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED [2013] UKUT 487 (LC) 3 October 2013 This appeal concerned whether a management company is precluded from being an "RTM company" because its registered name omits the letters "RTM" from the model article. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT, holding that statutory criteria in s.73(2) of the 2002 Act determine RTM status and that the 2009 Regulations cannot impose additional substantive conditions; prescribed model articles operate as having effect whether adopted or not, so omission of "RTM" in the company name did not defeat the company's RTM status. The appeal was dismissed and the respondent declared entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises.
MR K AND MRS E CULLEN v BARNARD LODGE MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2013] UKUT 493 (LC) 3 October 2013 This appeal concerned whether two service charge demands complied with ss 47–48 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and whether the tribunal should have decided that point. The Cullens had accepted the October 2010 demand as the first compliant notification and did not argue the s47–48 point before the LVT; the Upper Tribunal held the LVT was not at fault for not deciding an issue that was not live or argued and dismissed the appeal. The Cullens could not pursue on appeal a point they had conceded below.
Nottingham City Council v MICHAEL TYAS [2013] UKUT 492 (LC) 3 October 2013 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal applied the correct test in granting an extension of time to appeal an improvement notice under Schedule 1 para 14(3) of the Housing Act 2004. The Upper Tribunal held the statutory test is whether there is a "good reason" for failure to appeal in time, requiring the tribunal to identify the factual reason for delay and assess it; where posting is proved a presumption of receipt applies and the applicant must rebut receipt on the balance of probabilities. The RPT had applied a broader "interests of justice" approach and failed to decide receipt on the balance of probabilities, so the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for redetermination.
THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE COUNCIL v STEPHEN NORMAN SMITH [2013] UKUT 421 (LC) 30 September 2013 This appeal concerned assessment of compensation for compulsory acquisition of 8 Tornville Crescent, Rawcliffe Bridge, with valuation date 10 March 2013. The owner was uncontactable and the tribunal accepted the acquiring authority’s written valuation evidence without a hearing or inspection. Using seven justified adjusted comparable sales, the tribunal fixed market value at £95,000 and awarded that sum as compensation. No costs were ordered.
FOREST HOUSE ESTATES LTD v DAKHIL ALLAH R AL-HARTHI [2013] UKUT 479 (LC) 26 September 2013 This appeal concerned whether the leaseholder breached a covenant to provide and maintain fitted carpeting and underlay throughout a flat by laying wooden flooring covered by rugs from about April 2012 until carpets were relaid before inspection. The Upper Tribunal held there had been a breach from about April 2012 until 3 August 2012 and allowed the landlord’s appeal against the LVT’s decision. The UT also held the LVT should have determined whether a breach had occurred, even though the defect was remedied before inspection.
LORD MAYOR & CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER v ROGER ALLEN AND OTHERS [2013] UKUT 460 (LC) 26 September 2013 This appeal concerned whether the LVT was entitled to apply a single composite 25% discount to recoverable service-charge costs for replacement windows, balcony resurfacing and external redecoration at Holcroft Court, rather than quantifying deductions for each head, and whether various apportionment and technical issues needed determination. The Upper Tribunal rejected the primary grounds of appeal, holding the global percentage reduction was lawful given the state of the evidence and that reasonableness could be assessed by reference to performance and representative testing rather than resolving contested technical manuals. Two narrow apportionment issues (scaffolding/hoists allocation and right-to-buy limited lessees’ shares) were remitted to the LVT. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.
MONICA CALVER v ELIZABETH THOMAS BSc (Hons) MRICS 26 September 2013 This is an appeal by Mrs Calver against a Valuation Tribunal for Wales decision upholding a 2010 rateable value for Castle Cottages, a terrace of three self‑catering holiday units. The Valuation Officer re‑analysed comparables using a single bed‑space (SBS) method with a receipts & expenditure check and proposed RV £5,900; the tribunal was entitled to prefer that analysis where the appellant produced no detailed alternative valuation. The cottages, built and operated as one business under single ownership, were properly assessed as a single hereditament. The appeal was dismissed and the RV substituted at £5,900 from 1 April 2010.
DR PATRICIA M SCRIVEN AND OTHERS v CALTHORPE ESTATES AND OTHERS [2013] UKUT 469 (LC) 25 September 2013 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal had jurisdiction under s.159(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to vary an estate management scheme that imposed variable estate charges. The Upper Tribunal allowed the unopposed appeal, holding the LVT was wrong to refuse jurisdiction (following the Lands Tribunal decision in Botterill) and remitted the matter for reconsideration on the merits.
AARON WILLIAM M BURCHELL v RAJ PROPERTIES LIMITED [2013] UKUT 443 (LC) 18 September 2013 This appeal concerned whether a lease covenant to use a flat "as a private dwelling for the lessee and his family" prevents sub‑letting to unrelated persons and whether the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.57(6) empowered the tribunal to modify that covenant when granting a new lease. The Upper Tribunal held the covenant bears its ordinary meaning: occupation is limited to the person who is the lessee for the time being and his family, so sub‑letting to non‑family is not permitted. It further held the covenant was not a "defect" under s.57(6)(a) nor shown to be unreasonable under s.57(6)(b), so the LVT should not have modified the term. The appeal was dismissed and the new lease will replicate clause 2(16).
London Borough of Southwark v GARY PAUL AND OTHERS JURGEN BENZ [2013] UKUT 375 (LC) 18 September 2013 This case concerned challenges to overhead and administration elements of service charges charged by London Borough of Southwark under residential leases. The Upper Tribunal held the LVTs were wrong to rule that indirect overheads and the 10% administration add-on were irrecoverable in principle, and on the evidence upheld LBS's overheads and apportionment methods as reasonably incurred and applied (with one limited apportionment point remitted for reconsideration). The cross-appeal succeeded on the point that lack of paper invoices did not require disallowance where electronic records were adequate.
Graham Peter Wrigley v Landchance Property Management Ltd [2013] UKUT 376 (LC) 10 September 2013 This appeal concerned recovery of service and administration charges for Flat 4B under a 1992 lease for 2004–2010. The Tribunal held the lease's service charge contributions are reserved as rent for limitation purposes (six-year limitation) and upheld that on-account half-yearly estimated sums are recoverable despite the landlord's failure to procure audited year-end accounts, provided statutory formalities are met. The Tribunal rejected the lessee's challenge to service of demands, but held separate insurance premium demands invalid until proper audited accounts and demands for any shortfall are produced.
Mr Pavel Curzon v Lawrence Robin Hobbs & Others [2013] UKUT 419 (LC) 10 September 2013 This appeal concerned costs after the appellant, Mr Curzon, granted himself a 999‑year lease of the disputed flat, rendering his appeal against an LVT decision about collective enfranchisement academic. The Tribunal found the appellant had unreasonably delayed disclosing the lease to prolong proceedings, ordered him to pay £500 towards the respondents’ costs and remitted the matter to the LVT to settle the form of transfer of the freehold.
Metroplitan Property Realizations Ltd v John Keith Moss [2013] UKUT 415 (LC) 9 September 2013 This decision concerned recovery of landlord's professional costs under section 60 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1993 after a tenant served a s42 lease renewal claim. The First-tier Tribunal had refused to allow solicitor's fees for want of a client care letter; the President allowed the appeal, finding on the totality of evidence that the solicitor had acted for and been instructed by the landlord and awarding the agreed fees plus an indemnity for irrecoverable VAT. The appeal therefore succeeded and an additional £1,800 was awarded to the landlord in addition to the sums the LVT had already allowed.
Mr Kwan Shing Wong & Mrs Kan Fong Wong v Manchester City Council [2013] UKUT 431 (LC) 5 September 2013 This appeal concerned compensation after compulsory acquisition of 1 Silverdale Street, a small hot‑food shop, focussing on the freehold value at vesting and disturbance payments. The Tribunal accepted the council valuer's rental/yield‑based valuation and rejected the claimants' higher figures and loss‑of‑rent claim. Disturbance was awarded on a forced‑sale/depreciated basis (c. £8,000 for fixtures) plus an extinguishment allowance of £10,000, giving total compensation about £89,250.
PAUL & CHRISTOPHER JAMES t/a P & C JAMES PROPERTIES v WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT [2013] UKUT 422 (LC) 5 September 2013 This appeal concerned compensation for the compulsory acquisition of 221 High Street, Swansea, as at 16 September 2009, including what repair works were necessary and which valuation method to apply. The Tribunal found essential repairs of about £60,000, preferred the investment (rental capitalisation) method with rent at £17 psf ITZA and a 9% yield, and fixed the freehold value at £200,000; total compensation including agreed heads was £255,000.
AVIVA INVESTORS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LTD PPG SOUTHERN LIMITED v MARGARET WHITBY (Valuation Officer) ADRIAN MILLS (Valuation Officer) [2013] UKUT 430 (LC) 4 September 2013 This appeal concerned whether four speculatively built warehouses were "ready for occupation" on the material dates and therefore hereditaments liable to appear in the rating list without completion notices. The Tribunal found the units had reached practical completion but lacked essential features (warehouse lighting and small power distribution; Unit 11 also lacked a gas connection) and so were not ready for occupation for their designed purpose. The appeals were allowed and the entries were deleted from the rating list; respondents were ordered to pay the appellants' costs on the standard basis with specified interim payments.
Wenghold Limited v George Stephen Egleton [2013] UKUT 420 (LC) 4 September 2013 This appeal concerned whether costs are "incurred" for the purposes of section 20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 when services are supplied or only when the sums are ascertained (for example by invoice or payment). The Upper Tribunal held the LVT was wrong to treat the costs as incurred on supply and followed OM Property v Burr, concluding the managing agents did not incur the relevant electricity costs until invoices were received on 7 October 2009. The appeal was allowed and the full invoice sum paid 14 October 2009 was held recoverable in the 2009–10 service charge year.
BLACKPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL BLACKPOOL COASTAL HOUSING LIMITED v ALAN CARGILL 27 August 2013 This appeal concerned whether Blackpool Borough Council (through its ALMO) could recover increased management service charges under long leases and whether the LVT had correctly limited recoverable items to a flat £50. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT erred in construing paragraph 14(2) and in narrowing clause 3(i)(b), quashed the LVT decisions and substituted a revised on‑account management charge for 2011 of about £155, and rejected the claim that earlier years required repayment.
RICHARD ROBERTS (VALUATION OFFICER) v WEST COAST MARINE (PWLLHELI) LTD [2013] UKUT 413 (LC) 27 August 2013 This appeal concerned the effective date of an alteration to the 2010 non-domestic rating list correcting the number of hereditaments occupied by West Coast Marine. The UT held that regulation 14 of the 2005 Regulations exclusively governs the effective date and, on the facts, the alteration took effect on 1 February 2011 (the day the circumstances giving rise to the alteration first occurred), so the VTW was wrong to fix 20 September 2011. The VO's appeal was allowed and the VTW order was varied to substitute 1 February 2011.
Mr A Jamieson (VO) v E-ON UK Limited [2013] UKUT 369 (LC) 8 August 2013 This appeal concerned whether Enfield Power Station and its 12.6 km dedicated gas pipeline formed one hereditament for the 2005 rating list. The Valuation Tribunal found they were a single hereditament because the pipeline was contiguous to the station at the connection and functionally essential to its operation; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered merger of the entries. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Lidl (UK) GmbH v JANET RYDER [2013] UKUT 348 (LC) 6 August 2013 This appeal concerned the 2010 rating assessment of a former Safeway/Lidl supermarket in Ashford and whether particular comparables and rent evidence should be preferred in determining rateable value. The Tribunal inspected the site and comparables, weighed "second generation" and "concept" store rents, turnover data and a Fitness First rent apportionment, and found local competition and catchment materially affected value. The appeal was allowed and the rateable value reduced to £182,000 as at the antecedent valuation date, with the Valuation Officer ordered to pay Lidl’s costs.
Mrs Nitu Gulab Bhojwani v 12-18 Hill Street Investments Ltd [2013] UKUT 361 (LC) 30 July 2013 This appeal concerned whether a landlord's service charge demands and quarterly on-account demands under a 1980 lease and section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 complied with statutory and contractual requirements for service years 2003/04–2010/11 (and an earlier porter’s rent claim). The Upper Tribunal allowed parts of Mrs Bhojwani’s appeal, quashed the LVT's restrictive temporal limitation, held that all service charge demands June 2004–March 2011 failed s.47 and are not due until proper information is provided, ruled most quarterly on-account demands payable from March 2003–Dec 2010 were invalid for breaching lease clauses 4 and 5, disallowed notional porter's rent for specified periods, reduced a 2010/11 licence fee and capped accountancy fees, and excluded respondent costs from recoverable service charges.
ALEXANDER VOYVODA v GROSVENOR WEST END PROPERTIES 32 GROSVENOR SQUARE LIMITED [2013] UKUT 334 (LC) 25 July 2013 This appeal reheard the valuation uplift to apply to the intermediate landlord's reversion of three combined flats in a well‑run Prime Central London block. The sole issue was whether an extra 0.25% "Zuckerman" uplift (over the Sportelli 0.25%) was warranted; the Tribunal found Daejan removed the basis for that extra uplift in this factual context and dismissed the appeal, leaving the LVT valuation and the agreed capitalised service‑charge deficit deduction intact.
MICHAEL BERNARD BLUM v HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE & CUSTOMS [2013] UKUT 304 (LC) 23 July 2013 This appeal concerned the open‑market value on 31 March 1982 of a converted small office property at 48 Station Road, Harrow for CGT re‑basing. The Tribunal accepted HMRC’s valuer’s rental relativities and an 8% yield, fixed the annual rent at £11,000 and determined the freehold value at £137,500 as at that date. HMRC were awarded their costs from 5 January 2013.
NEVILLE JAMES STYNES AND BARBARA STYNES v WESTERN POWER (EAST MIDLANDS) PLC [2013] UKUT 214 (LC) 19 July 2013 This appeal concerned whether paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989 entitles owners to compensation under section 44 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for injurious affection caused by off‑site apparatus (notably pylon HK34). The Tribunal held that a necessary wayleave under Schedule 4 is a statutory licence/consent, not a taking or proprietary interest invoking s.44, so compensation is confined to loss attributable to the grant itself. Applying that, the agreed lower figure of £4,000 was awarded for injurious affection; costs and interest were dealt with as recorded.
PADDINGTON BASIN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (PBDL) (2) EUROPEAN LAND AND PROPERTY LIMITED (3) PADDINGTON BASIN MANAGEMENT LIMITED v (1) MR RAYMOND GRITS (2) WEST END QUAY ESTATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED (WEQEM) (3) FREEHOLD MANAGERS NOMINEES LIMITED (4)MR D MOSSELSON (5) MR M H B JEANS (6) MR ANDREW SHARR (7) LEASECLIFFE LIMITED (8) MS BRIDGET WALKER [2013] UKUT 338 (LC) 18 July 2013 This appeal concerned whether standard form underleases (notably clause J4) at West End Quay obliged lessees to contribute to costs of maintaining land retained after a 1997 assignment. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal had held they did not, and the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding clause J4, read in its contractual context and against the relevant matrix, did not extend tenants' service-charge liability to the retained land.
The London Borough of Southwark v DIRK ANDREA WOELKE [2013] UKUT 349 (LC) 18 July 2013 This is an appeal from an LVT decision refusing recovery of major-works service charges because the landlord served separate demands for major works rather than a single annual notification required by the lease. The Tribunal held the lease imposed non-waivable pre-year estimate and end-of-year notification requirements (total for year, summary, apportionment explanation and balance) and that the landlord’s documents did not comply, so no liability to pay was created. The appeal was dismissed and the LVT decision upheld.
KEENEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v (1) DR ZOE M BROOKE (2) MR DAVID LEE (3) MS CLARE BANNER AND MR DAVID BANNER (4) MRS KATHERINE DOS SANTOS FERNANDES AND MRS ELIZABETH CLEMENTS (5) MR GARETH MCCONNELL AND MS CRISTA FITZHENRY (6) MS NATALIE SUTTON (7) MR BORIS HOREL AND MS AURELIE HAROUTUNIAN (8) MR ADAM PARKINSON AND MR FRANK PARKINSON [2013] UKUT 329 (LC) 17 July 2013 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) denied the freeholder a proper opportunity to participate when it determined compensation on paper and later awarded £72,238.80. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT failed to comply with Regulation 13(2) procedural requirements and wrongly relied on a unilateral letter saying the landlord did not wish to respond, causing substantial prejudice. The LVT's decision of 25 August 2010 was quashed and the compensation issue remitted for rehearing at an oral hearing.
(1) CHRIS BARNEY (2) MARC MORRELL v EASTERN GREEN LTD [2013] UKUT 331 (LC) 15 July 2013 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) was right to accept a management company's 3:1 per-square-foot weighting for commercial versus residential space when apportioning a building insurance premium inflated by commercial uses (including a deep fat fryer). The LVT accepted evidence that premiums were reasonably incurred and that the management company's recalculation under the lease's "as it shall consider to be equitable" provision was reasonable. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT's conclusions and dismissed the appeal.
MR PATRICK PLUNKETT MRS LINDA PLUNKETT v The Coal Authority [2015] UKUT 160 (LC) 12 July 2013 This appeal concerned entitlement to and assessment of "costs or expenses" payable under section 38 of the Coal Industry Act 1991 and whether the Tribunal could award costs of the reference. The Registrar's detailed assessment reduced the claimants' section 38 claim for legal costs to £165,793.43, and the President ordered the Coal Authority to pay that sum (less prior payments) and the claimants' costs of the reference on the standard basis. The President rejected indemnity costs and applied proportionality in assessing what costs were "reasonably incurred."
MR PATRICK PLUNKETT MRS LINDA PLUNKETT v The Coal Authority [2013] UKUT 212 (LC) 12 July 2013 This appeal concerned recovery of the claimants' costs under s.38 of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 following a damage notice for subsidence at Wylam Cottage. The Tribunal held that "costs or expenses reasonably incurred" must be read to require proportionality, applied the pre‑1 April 2013 (Lownds) two‑stage proportionality test to the work done, and found on the material before it that the claimants' overall costs were prima facie disproportionate, with particular scrutiny required for costs incurred after the Coal Authority's October 2007 offer and for costs on abandoned heads. Detailed assessment of the bill and the preliminary hearing costs was reserved.
MRS DAPHNE MARION WALLACE-JARVIS v (1) OPTIMA (CAMBRIDGE) LIMITED Respondents (2) MR AND MRS KAMRAM KHAZAI [2013] UKUT 328 (LC) 11 July 2013 This Upper Tribunal reheard an LVT decision about service‑charge water and sewerage costs at Castle Walk, Stansted, limited to flat 23 and the years ending 24 December 2009 and 2010. The Tribunal held the LVT was wrong to treat the large billed water charges as prima facie payable because the landlord failed to show the costs were reasonably incurred where billed consumption was manifestly excessive. The recoverable water and sewerage element for flat 23 was fixed at £217.42 per annum for each of the two years. The appeal was allowed in part and confined to the appellant, flat 23, and those years.
Avon Freeholds Limited v REGENT COURT RTM CO LIMITED [2013] UKUT 213 (LC) 5 July 2013 This appeal concerned whether failures to serve certain participation notices (notably on an absentee tenant of flat 16) and the effect of an earlier agreed-invalid claim notice defeated an RTM claim. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT: defects in service did not vitiate the claim because substantial compliance and absence of significant prejudice were shown, and the earlier invalid claim notice did not remain operative so as to bar a later valid claim notice. The appeal was dismissed and the respondent was entitled to acquire the right to manage.
J S BLOOR (WILMSLOW) LIMITED v J S BLOOR (WILMSLOW) v LIMITEDHOMES AND COMMUNITIES AGENCY [2013] UKUT 231 (LC) 1 July 2013 This case concerned valuation of 26.85 acres compulsorily acquired for the Kingsway Business Park (KBP) and whether the land had development (hope) value at the 4 Jan 2006 valuation date. The Tribunal applied the cancellation assumption (s.16 LCA 1961), found a realistic c.50% prospect of residential permission in a "no KBP" world with appropriate deferral periods, but held that much uplift attributable to the wider KBP scheme must be disregarded under s.6 and Schedule 1; compensation was fixed at £746,000 and the claimant awarded costs.
Mr J Money Mr C Carey-Morgan Mr J R Davies v CADOGAN HOLDINGS LTD [2013] UKUT 211 (LC) 26 June 2013 This appeal concerned the LVT's allowance of £161,750 to the freeholder for loss of a caretaker-flat restriction when determining the enfranchisement price for 15 Tite Street. The Upper Tribunal held that such an uplift is not necessarily "marriage value" excluded by Schedule 6 paragraph 4(2A) and can, in principle, be reflected in the freeholder's valuation under paragraph 3 by appropriate market assumptions. However the LVT's method of quantifying the uplift was flawed, so the matter was remitted to the LVT for re‑valuation rather than the Tribunal substituting a new figure.
CHRISTOPHER KONSTANTY JASTRZEMBSKI v Westminster City Council 20 June 2013 This appeal concerns whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) properly dealt with challenges to service charge consultation notices under s.20 and whether dispensation under s.20ZA was appropriate. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT procedurally erred by raising the validity of the 2009 notice of its own motion and wrongly treated the 2007 notice as covering the 2009 works, but concluded there was no relevant prejudice from any defect and so dispensation under s.20ZA was properly granted.
ISLAND HOMES HOUSING ASSOCIATION v BENET ALLEN CLAIRE LOUISE KEYTE [2013] UKUT 258 (LC) 11 June 2013 The tenant appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) could alter credit entries in the landlord’s pleaded statement of account when determining service charges for 1 July 2007–10 June 2010, and what reduction under s.20C was appropriate for LVT costs. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT did have power to adjust credits that derived from figures the tribunal itself revised, accepted the landlord’s unchallenged arithmetic, fixed the balance payable at £2,840.16, and ordered that 3.2% of the landlord’s LVT costs be excluded from relevant costs under s.20C; no order was made as to the costs of the appeal.
ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED v TIMOTHY WALKER [2013] UKUT 52 (LC) 10 June 2013 Esso appealed Valuation Tribunal decisions and the Upper Tribunal found the petrol filling station at Maidstone Motorway Service Area was a separable hereditament from the remainder of the site and that Esso, not Roadchef, was in paramount occupation and thus the rateable occupier of the petrol filling station. The Tribunal replaced the single assessments with separate assessments for the petrol filling station and the remainder and ordered costs for Esso.
AVON ESTATES (LONDON) LIMITED v Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited [2013] UKUT 264 (LC) 30 May 2013 This appeal concerned whether an insurance premium and a 12% claims‑handling fee for a three‑flat converted terrace were "reasonably incurred" and thus recoverable as service charges. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT's decision that the premium was recoverable but disallowed the 12% claims‑handling fee for lack of evidence, and refused to make a s.20C LTA 1985 order. The respondent's attempt to challenge the 12% deduction was dismissed for lack of permission to cross‑appeal and, alternatively, on the merits.
GPE Hanover Square Ltd. 18/19 Hanover Square No 1 Ltd. 18/19 Hanover Square No.2 Ltd v Transport for London [2012] UKUT 417 (LC) 28 May 2013 This case concerned valuation principles under the Land Compensation Act 1961 following compulsory acquisition by Crossrail of interests in 18 & 19 Hanover Square and 1A Tenterden Street. The Tribunal decided as a preliminary issue that s.9 does not allow the valuer to assume the acquired freehold/long leasehold interests or their lease terms were different from how they actually stood at the valuation date; valuation must reflect the interest "as it actually was". A further preliminary issue about recovery of past rent shortfall under rule (6) was deferred to the principal hearing. Costs for the first preliminary issue were awarded to the acquiring authority.
TRIPLEROSE LIMITED v MR Y BISHUN AND OTHERS [2013] UKUT 257 (LC) 22 May 2013 This appeal concerned an LVT decision reducing landlord service‑charge claims for 2007–2009 after finding lack of supporting invoices and relying on its own experience. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT had failed adequately to take account of available accounts/evidence and to give reasons for substituting its own figures, and remitted the case to a differently constituted LVT with directions for disclosure and clarification of issues.
John David Pitman and Mrs Colleen Pitman v Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council [2013] UKUT 246 (LC) 21 May 2013 This case concerned a blight notice served by the Pitmans after which their mortgaged property was repossessed and sold by the mortgagee to a third party. The tribunal held that the statutory blight-notice remedy is acquisition of the claimant's qualifying proprietary interest, and once that interest was lost by sale to a third party there was no remaining remedy. The reference was struck out under rule 8(3)(c) for having no reasonable prospect of success; the tribunal would not treat the notice as deemed withdrawn.
Holden Vale (Conference Centre) Limited v Mr A Whitehead (Valuation Officer) [2013] UKUT 237 (LC) 16 May 2013 Holden Vale appealed the 2010 rating of its 35‑bed hotel, seeking a nil valuation and arguing that "exceptional" circumstances required a full Receipts & Expenditure (R&E) valuation rather than application of the 2010 Provincial Hotels Agreed Valuation Scheme. The Tribunal held the case was not exceptional under paragraph 5.3 of Rating Manual No.5, accepted the Valuation Officer's use of the Agreed Scheme (applying the lowest percentage and comparables) and dismissed the appeal, confirming RV £33,500 from 1 April 2010.
The Collection (Management Company) v David John Jackson (Valuation Officer) [2013] UKUT 166 (LC) 16 May 2013 This appeal concerned whether a 9.58 m2 concierge room serving a 15-house residential development was non-domestic or an "other appurtenance" of property used wholly for living accommodation under s.66(1) LGFA 1988. The Upper Tribunal held the relevant property could be the group of houses collectively, that the concierge room lay within their curtilage and was an appurtenance belonging to and enjoyed with the residences, and allowed the appeal deleting the non-domestic rating entry. Costs were not awarded.
The Moorings (Bournemouth) v Mr D T McNeill [2013] UKUT 243 (LC) 16 May 2013 This appeal concerned whether a residents' management company’s discretionary parking scheme was enforceable and whether Mr McNeill breached his lease by failing to comply. The Upper Tribunal held he was estopped from challenging the scheme because he had conceded its validity in earlier county court proceedings, and alternatively found the scheme to be a reasonable regulation under the lease. The tribunal declared Mr McNeill in breach and liable for the administration charges claimed.
Kolup Investments Ltd v Dr Louis Al-Dhahir [2013] UKUT 136 (LC) 15 May 2013 This appeal concerned whether the freeholder (Kolup) could recover legal costs it incurred in 2009 contesting replacement-boiler quotes through the service charge. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT erred in finding those costs were not incurred qua landlord and that the 2009 proceedings were a "charade", and it allowed recovery of the 2009 legal costs and an additional solicitor's fee subject to specified reductions and adjustments to LVT and Upper Tribunal costs orders.
Patrick William Brown and Thomas Charles Gaydon v Island Homes Housing Association Limited [2013] UKUT 153 (LC) 13 May 2013 This Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision reviews appeals by Brown and Gaydon against LVT determinations about service-charge liabilities at The Quarterdeck, focusing on whether the LVT properly considered ledger-versus-statement evidence produced by a lessee/accountant, Mr Kong Lee, for 2009/2010. The Tribunal held the LVT failed to have regard to Mr Lee’s evidence on several specific service-charge items for 33 Midship Point and remitted that part of the case for rehearing on lift maintenance, concierge, rubbish collection, day-to-day maintenance (block and estate) and estate cleaning/grounds maintenance for 2009/2010. The Tribunal found no basis from Mr Lee’s Midship Point evidence to disturb other parts of the LVT decisions (including the Bowsprit Point decision) and made limited costs orders.
TRIPLEROSE LIMITED v GRANTGLEN LIMITED AND CANE DEVELOPMENTS [2012] UKUT 204 (LC) 7 May 2013 This appeal concerned whether demands for service charges complied with section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 where the landlord was misnamed. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT was wrong on the section 47 point: naming the director instead of the corporate landlord breached the statutory requirement, so the service charge was not payable until a compliant demand was served. The Tribunal’s factual finding that the demands and s.21B summaries had been served was upheld.
Alison Pishbin v ROGER EDWARD HIBBINS(VO) [2013] UKUT 180 (LC) 1 May 2013 This appeal concerned the rateable value of a ground-floor shop at 28 Regent Road after it was split from an adjoining unit; the appellant sought RV £13,750 while the Valuation Officer maintained £17,000. The Valuation Tribunal rejected the appellant’s reliance on various lettings and comparables it found unreliable or outside the relevant time window, allowed a net residential allowance per flat of £4,000 (after a management deduction), and confirmed the RV at £17,000 effective 30 October 2010. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.
Triplerose Ltd v Mr Imran Khan [2013] UKUT 2 (LC) 23 April 2013 This appeal concerned who was entitled to receive service and administration charges for a flat where a supposed management-company Head Lease had never been granted and the management company went into liquidation. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT was wrong to treat the management company (Mandale) as entitled to charges because it had not been granted the Head Lease and did not provide the services; after Bowesfield granted a Head Lease to the appellant, the appellant had assumed the landlord's position and was entitled to receive service charges. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remitted the question of the exact sums and apportionment (including 2011 and administration charges) back to the LVT for determination.
Unknown Owner v Shepway District Council [2013] UKUT 190 (LC) 22 April 2013 This appeal concerned the amount of compensation payable for the freehold of Dunstall Lane, an unadopted road compulsorily acquired under a 2011 CPO with valuation date 21 October 2012. The tribunal found the acquiring authority had taken reasonable steps to identify the owner, accepted the expert valuer's evidence that the lane generated no income and carried onerous maintenance liabilities, and awarded nominal compensation of £1. No costs were ordered.
Andrew Lewicki v Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council [2013] UKUT 120 (LC) 18 April 2013 This case concerned compensation for compulsory acquisition of 31 Ludford Road, Nuneaton, including the market value of the house, whether a redevelopment (residual) value existed, and disputed disturbance items. The tribunal fixed market value as an existing house at £84,000, rejected the claimant’s residual (redevelopment) valuation as unreliable, allowed specified disturbance items totaling additional sums, assessed total compensation at £99,794.45, and ordered the acquiring authority to pay the claimant’s costs on the standard basis.
ARNOLD WHITE ESTATES LIMITED v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc [2013] UKUT 5 (LC) 16 April 2013 This appeal concerned compensation under para 7 Schedule 4 of the Electricity Act 1989 after National Grid obtained a 15-year statutory wayleave for a 400kV line across Arnold White Estates' "pylon land". The Tribunal held that a genuine, registrable conditional contract for sale of the pylon strip could establish the owner's special value and be used to assess compensation where causation, remoteness and reasonableness are satisfied, and it assessed compensation as the difference between that contract price (indexed to £5,829,477) and the real‑world value of the land at the valuation date. The Tribunal found the real‑world value effectively nominal after accounting for planning constraints and costs, and awarded AWE costs on the standard basis.
P C RESIDENTS (FINCHLEY ROAD) LIMITED v SEKINAT ABIOLA AND OTHERS [2013] UKUT 165 (LC) 8 April 2013 This appeal concerned a Management Order under s.24 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 appointing Bruce Maunder Taylor as "Manager and Receiver" of Palace Court after lessees applied for management. The Lands Chamber held the LVT could appoint a manager and could confer on that manager functions ordinarily exercisable by a receiver when ancillary to management, but had no power to appoint a receiver as such; it removed the words "and Receiver" and corrected an inconsistency referring to "rent". The Chamber left open challenges to any specific acts by the manager for separate proceedings.
JOHN BURVILL v GARETH DAVID JONES (Valuation Officer) [2013] UKUT 101 (LC) 25 March 2013 This appeal concerned the 2010 rating valuation of Unit 4, K9 Estate, occupied as an MOT test centre, and whether valuation should reflect its sui generis use and neighbouring nuisances. The Tribunal held the unit should be valued as an MOT test centre using proximate estate comparables, applied rebus sic stantibus, allowed deductions for poor access, lack of drinking water and neighbouring refuse use, and reduced the RV to £14,500 (effective 1 April 2010). The appeal was allowed in part; no costs order was made.
STEPHEN DOWNSWORTH TAMMY DOWNSWORTH v Manchester City Council [2013] UKUT 142 (LC) 21 March 2013 This case concerns a dispute over the reasonableness and recoverability of a surveyor's fees claimed by the Downsworths for compulsory purchase compensation for 64 Stopford Street. The Tribunal held the claimant's contracted rate (£175/hr) and the hours claimed were excessive and disproportionate for a typical residential claim, accepted the council's comparative evidence, and awarded £3,840 plus VAT and disbursements of £207.50 while dismissing the interest claim and disallowing preparation and generic-fee discussion costs.
BRICKFIELD PROPERTIES LIMITED v PAUL BOTTEN [2013] UKUT 133 (LC) 14 March 2013 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) could and should make a variation of service‑charge apportionment leases effective from the date when one block was enfranchised (10 November 2006). The Upper Tribunal held the statutory powers in ss 35 and 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 permit retrospective variations and that the LVT erred in principle by refusing to backdate; the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the variation to take effect from 10 November 2006.
CHARLES CAREY-MORGAN JONATHAN MONEY v LUDOVIC ADAM PAUL DE WALDEN CATHERINE CAMILLA DE WALDEN [2013] UKUT 134 (LC) 14 March 2013 This appeal concerned whether leaseholders could recover by way of service charge the costs of employing a full‑time resident caretaker (FTRC) and a notional market rent for a basement caretaker's flat. The LVT had allowed only cleaner costs, but the Upper Tribunal held that on proper construction the lease entitled recovery of staff costs necessary to provide caretaking services and that, for reasonableness under s.19, measures taken to avoid forfeiture of the superior headlease could be recoverable. The UT therefore allowed recovery of the FTRC costs and notional basement rent for the years in question.
TOBICON LIMITED v RHIANNON COLLINSON AND OTHERS [2013] UKUT 47 (LC) 6 March 2013 This appeal challenged whether LVT proceedings had been properly served on the freeholder, and whether the Upper Tribunal should remit for rehearing. The tribunal found formal service at the Jersey-registered address had not been effected and no substituted-service order was made, but the freeholder had actual knowledge via agents and its UK solicitor and had elected not to participate. The tribunal exercised its discretion under the statute and Regulations to dispense with formal service and refused a rehearing; the appeal was dismissed.
London Borough of Southwark v Mr C Bevan Miss C Champenois [2013] UKUT 114 (LC) 4 March 2013 This appeal concerned whether the landlord’s bedroom‑based apportionment of service charges for 2011–2012 was a permissible method under the lease and whether flat 7 should be treated as one or two bedrooms. The Upper Tribunal held the bedroom‑based method was a reasonable method under the lease and, on the balance of probabilities, flat 7 was a one‑bedroom flat. The LVT was wrong to reject a lay witness’s direct evidence for lack of property qualifications or to impose a higher standard of proof. The appeal was allowed and the service charge recalculated treating flat 7 as one bedroom.
Hillfinch Properties Ltd v The Lessees of Southbourne Court [2013] UKUT 96 (LC) 26 February 2013 This appeal concerned whether proposed major works at a 28-flat block (notably replacement of rear balconies omitted from initial s.20 consultation) were reasonably incurred and recoverable by the landlord via the service charge, and whether the LVT should take lessees' affordability into account and how costs orders should be treated. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT erred in failing to determine the live affordability issue and remitted that question to the LVT, and also remitted the LVT’s costs decision for reconsideration because the LVT had relied impermissibly on landlord‑blame reasoning given it had found the leases clear. The LVT’s findings that (save for the balconies) the proposed works and estimates were reasonable otherwise stood.
SONIAN KULLAR PRIORY PLACE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v KINGSOAK HOMES LIMITED [2013] UKUT 15 (LC) 26 February 2013 This appeal concerned challenges to LVT determinations on whether various service‑charge items for Priory Place (2003/04–2009/10) were reasonably incurred and recoverable, and whether a s.20C order should exclude the landlord’s LVT costs from recovery. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the tenants’ substantive appeal, allowed the landlord’s cross‑appeal in part (remitting a 2008/09 legal‑fees disallowance for redetermination as it was decided on an unargued ground), and remitted the s.20C costs question for reconsideration with limited directions; modest costs orders were made.
CORSCOMBE CLOSE BLOCK 8 RTM COMPANY LIMITED v ROSELEB LIMITED [2013] UKUT 81 (LC) 21 February 2013 This appeal concerned whether tenants under shared ownership leases were "qualifying tenants" for service of a notice under s.84(3) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 as read with the definition of "long lease" in s.76 of the 2002 Act. The Upper Tribunal held that a lease meeting the general criterion in s.76(2)(a) (term exceeding 21 years) is a "long lease" even if it is also a shared ownership lease that does not meet the 100% share condition in s.76(2)(e), so the shared ownership tenants were qualifying tenants and had been properly served. The UT nonetheless noted the claimant’s overall claim failed on an unchallenged procedural defect at the LVT.
Mr M A Jackson Mrs J W Jackson v The Keepers & Governors of the Possessions Revenue & Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon [2013] UKUT 56 (LC) 18 February 2013 This appeal concerned the valuation for enfranchisement of 101 Hamilton Terrace, disputing (a) whether the LVT double-counted a "Hamilton Terrace" premium on a £1,240/psf base and (b) whether the LVT failed to allow for development and planning risk and costs in its development value. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT on the premium point but allowed the leaseholders' challenge on development value, applying a 20% deduction to GDV for combined development and planning risk and fixing the enfranchisement price at £1,536,000.
ROSALIE A STEPHENSON WINIFRED E STEPHENSON v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2013] UKUT 64 (LC) 7 February 2013 This appeal determined the compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of 11 Manor Road, Beverley, with valuation date 3 February 2012. The council sold the vested property by a competitive tender process which produced a highest bid of £205,000, but the council's valuer had assessed open market value at £169,000; the tribunal found deficiencies in the valuer's comparable-based evidence and accepted the properly conducted tender result, awarding £205,000.
ANTHONY KEITH ALLEN v Leicester City Council [2013] UKUT 16 (LC) 4 February 2013 This was a compulsory purchase reference for 32 Broad Avenue, Leicester, with valuation date 10 January 2006. The Tribunal rejected the council's residual valuation as unreliable, treated the council's September 2006 auction sale of the same property as admissible and, with adjustments for time and clearance, awarded compensation of £105,000; no basic loss payment or costs were payable.
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM v LUIS REY-ORDIERES AND OTHERS [2013] UKUT 14 (LC) 28 January 2013 This appeal concerned whether service-charge uplifts (professional/on-costs set at 26% and a 10% management fee) charged under a PFI-based contract were "reasonably incurred" within s.19(1)(a) of the 1985 Act. The Upper Tribunal held that contractual payment under a PFI is persuasive but not conclusive evidence of reasonableness; it fixed on-costs at 24% of base costs (3.48% fees; 10.52% preliminaries; 10% overheads/profit) and allowed a 10% management fee to be charged on total costs. The LVT’s reduction of preliminaries to 3.5% and disallowance of the management fee were overturned in part.
MR AND MRS N DENNETT v VICTORIA JOANNE CRISP MRICS (Valuation Officer) [2013] UKUT 35 (LC) 24 January 2013 Mr and Mrs Dennett appealed a 2010 rating assessment for Talehay, a rural self‑catering complex, contesting the fair maintainable trade (FMT) used in a receipts & expenditure (R & E) valuation. The Tribunal accepted that the actual takings were inflated by exceptional management/marketing and reduced FMT to about £50,000, using comparables, and amended the 2010 Rateable Value to £7,550. No costs were awarded.
SOPHIA MARIA VOYAZIDES v (1)CHARLES GEORGE SAMUEL EYRE (2)JAMES HENRY ROBERT EYRE (3)PETER LOMAS (4)HUGH JOHN LOMAS (in their capacity as Trustees of the Eyre Estate) [2013] UKUT 13 (LC) 22 January 2013 This was a Tribunal rehearing of an appeal under s.9(1C) Leasehold Reform Act 1967 about the unimproved vacant possession values of freehold and leasehold interests in 60 Avenue Road, and the relativity for a 19.16-year unexpired term. The Tribunal preferred direct freehold comparables (notably No.64) and graph-based relativity evidence (mean ~42%) over a single combined lease-sale-plus-enfranchisement transaction, found unimproved freehold value £15,000,000 and unimproved leasehold value £6,300,000, refused allowances for proposed school blight or proximity to the Israeli ambassador, and dismissed the appeal, fixing the enfranchisement price at £7,430,000.
Trevor Sadd v Ruth Brown [2012] UKUT 438 (LC) 5 January 2013 This appeal concerned whether insurance premiums were recoverable from the lessee under a 1988 lease and whether the First‑tier Tribunal (LVT) should have decided a contractual point it had not invited submissions on. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT was wrong to decide an unargued contractual issue without giving the parties an opportunity to comment, but on the true construction of the lease concluded insurance premiums were not recoverable and no term to that effect should be implied. The appeal was dismissed.
HARRY JOHNSON JUNE JOHNSON AND OTHERS v COUNTY BIDEFORD LTD [2012] UKUT 457 (LC) 17 December 2012 Lessees appealed an LVT decision on service charges and whether earlier defective demands engaged the 18‑month limit in s20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985; the landlord had served fresh demands in June 2011 after earlier demands omitted the landlord's name in breach of s47(1). The Upper Tribunal held the June 2011 demands validated the earlier defective demands for the purposes of s20B, so the lessees' s20B argument failed, and dismissed the landlord's cross‑appeal against a s20C order excluding the landlord's LVT costs as being within the tribunal’s discretion despite inadequate reasons.
London Borough of Hackney v Zahra Akhondi [2012] UKUT 439 (LC) 10 December 2012 This appeal concerned reductions the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) made to service charge demands for entryphone/door works and major external works and its grant of a s.20C order preventing recovery of LVT costs. The Upper Tribunal found the LVT had made unsupported and arbitrary percentage reductions and had committed procedural error by failing to base conclusions on evidence and to allow parties to comment; it quashed the s.20C order and restored the sums demanded for the entryphone/doors (£5,001.57) and the external works (£19,743.44). The appeal was allowed and the LVT adjustments set aside after the Upper Tribunal reheard the council’s evidence (the lessee did not participate).
Jason Aaron Parker v Mr R Walker. Mr C Hobbs. Miss K McKimm, Mr A Rowland, Miss R Fraser and Mr R Philp [2012] UKUT 301 (LC) 26 November 2012 This appeal concerned rent repayment orders (RROs) made after the landlord ran an unlicensed HMO. The Upper Tribunal found the residential property tribunal erred in treating the full rent as presumptively repayable and in ordering repayment for periods after the landlord had applied for a licence (21 January 2011). The President re-took the decision, limited the recoverable period to before 21 January 2011, calculated the landlord's profit and ordered repayment equal to 75% of that profit less the fine, apportioned among the six occupiers (total £4,771; Waller £967; Hobbs £1,060; McKimm £645; Rowland £589; Fraser £447; Philp £1,060).
JOHN RICHARD WESTMACOTT ALEXANDER CRAIG-MOONEY JAMES EDWARD CHICHESTER (IN THE CAPACITY AS TRUSTEES OF THE MEYRICK 1970 SETTLEMENT) v JOSEPH ACKERMAN NAOMI ACKERMAN [2012] UKUT 415 (LC) 20 November 2012 This case concerned the open market valuation of the freehold reversions of 59 and 61 Grove Road, Bournemouth (valuation date 12 March 2008) with about 21 years unexpired on the leases. The tribunal rejected the appellants' method of aggregating assumed long-lease sale prices less repair costs and preferred an investment-based/residual approach using appropriate yields and deferment to reflect market risk; the appeals were dismissed and the confirmed prices payable were £466,300 (No.59) and £231,400 (No.61).
MERCIA INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LTD v MARGARET NORTHWAY [2012] UKUT 419 (LC) 20 November 2012 This appeal concerned an LVT decision finding a tenant had breached a lease covenant but waiving the breach when the tenant presented a cheque, and nevertheless ordering the landlord to pay the tenant's costs. The UT allowed the landlord's appeal on costs, holding the LVT had no lawful basis to make an effectively unlimited costs award because it made no finding under paragraph 10(2) Schedule 12 of the 2002 Act and failed to apply the statutory £500 cap in paragraph 10(3)(a).
FREEHOLD MANAGERS (NOMINEES) LTD v MARTINA PIATTI POLO PIATTI [2012] UKUT 241 (LC) 6 November 2012 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.
C A TROTT (PLANT HIRE) LIMITED v BRIAN HUMBLE PATRICIA MARY HUMBLE BASIL DEREK WESTLEY CHRISTINE MURIEL TURNER WESTLEY PETER JOHN GLIBBERY MARGARET DALLY GLIBBERY [2012] UKUT 391 (LC) 29 October 2012 This is an appeal by a freeholder against an LVT decision fixing premiums for three lease extensions of flats with onerous 25‑year rent‑review provisions. The Upper Tribunal rejected complaints of procedural unfairness about reliance on material from another case and exclusion of late evidence, and upheld the LVT's valuation approach (including a 10% and a further 30% discount and a 7% capitalisation rate). The tribunal concluded the 30% discount for market effect of the rent‑review provisions was a permissible and reasonable adjustment and did not amount to impermissible double counting. The appeal was dismissed.
Martin Thirlaway v Troy and Jordi Fores Masculet. Jamie Glover. Advanced Enterprise Ltd [2012] UKUT 302 (LC) 29 October 2012 This appeal concerned whether Tribunal orders varying three similar 99‑year leases to add certain company/landlord costs (company management, legal/defence costs, directors' insurance), an indemnity and interest were lawful and reasonable. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appellant's challenge, holding the variations were necessary to achieve the stated objects and were not substantially prejudicial given statutory safeguards, but imposed a proviso limiting recoverability of AEL's wider company business costs to situations where AEL's constitutional documents confine it to managing 5 Amor Road. The appellant was ordered to pay respondents' costs of £267.20.
ST JOHN’S WOOD LEASES LIMITED v JOANN O’NEIL [2012] UKUT 374 (LC) 26 October 2012 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (LVT) properly exercised its discretion under s.20C to limit landlord recoverable costs and whether it adequately explained finding that the tenant had "overall succeeded" so as to award repayment of the £500 issue fee under Regulation 9. The Upper Tribunal set aside the LVT's orders as deficient on reasons and approach, reviewed the same evidence and in its stead disallowed 10% of the landlord's recoverable costs under s.20C but refused the tenant's claim for repayment of the £500 fee. The UT held the LVT had misapplied s.20C and failed to give intelligible reasons for the Regulation 9 award.
REDROW REGENERATION (BARKING) LTD. BARKING CENTRAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY (NO 2) LTD v RYAN EDWARDS. ADEWALE ANIBABA. PLANIMIR KOSTOV PETKOV. DAVID GILL [2012] UKUT 373 (LC) 22 October 2012 This appeal concerned whether the phrase "the Development" in leases for flats at 87 Axe Street was sufficiently certain to support service charges that were apportioned across three buildings (87 Axe Street, The Lemonade Building and Bath House). The First-tier Tribunal had held the term uncertain and therefore that the demanded charges had not fallen due; the Upper Tribunal found that construction is a question of law, admissible background material could be used, and that the available material supported construing "the Development" to include all three buildings, allowing the appeal and remitting the matter for further consideration of the tenants' substantive challenges.
Wales and West Housing Association Limited v Sharon Paine [2012] UKUT 372 (LC) 22 October 2012 This appeal concerned a tenant challenge to a £292 management service charge where the First-tier Tribunal (LVT) reduced the charge to £200 without evidence and by relying on its own undisclosed "knowledge and experience." The Upper Tribunal allowed the landlord's appeal, quashed the LVT's reduction as unlawful for lack of evidential basis and for reaching conclusions on matters not put in issue by the parties, and restored the landlord's demanded charge.
DEALMORE LIMITED v DWAINE ANTONIO EZRA JONES [2012] UKUT 317 (LC) 16 October 2012 Dealmore Ltd appealed an LVT decision refusing a s.27A declaration about proposed repair works and recovery of service charges at Kenyon Mansions. On rehearing the Upper Tribunal found the amended works were sufficiently specified, fell within the landlord's repairing obligations and tenants' service-charge covenant, the consultation requirements had been complied with on the evidence, and allowed the appeal, fixing the tenant's contribution at £21,135.59 plus VAT (one-eighth) subject to a specification adjustment.
SHELLPOINT TRUSTEES LIMITED ANSTON INVESTMENTS LIMITED v (1)JAMES JOHN HENRY BARNETT (2)JEREMY CLYNE (3)KATHERNINE ZOGRAPHOS (4)CONSTANTINE JOHN ZOGRAPHOS [2012] UKUT 375 (LC) 8 October 2012 Landlords sought s.37 variations to 365 leases, supported by a large ballot presented as a single package, to permit recovery via the service charge of various enforcement and legal costs alongside an agreed communal heating replacement. The LVT refused the non‑consequential cost‑recovery variations for lack of evidence they were necessary to achieve the stated object, and found they would substantially prejudice respondents; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the landlords’ appeal and upheld the refusal. The landlords’ late attempt to amend to a narrower case was refused.
POYNDERS COURT LIMITED v GLS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2012] UKUT 339 (LC) 1 October 2012 This appeal concerned whether a 2005 Management Agreement between Poynders Court Ltd and Bells was a "qualifying long term agreement" (QLTA) under s.20ZA(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT's decision that, although the contract was terminable on three months' notice and silent as to a fixed term, its wording and substance showed an intention to provide ongoing management services and therefore to endure beyond 12 months. The landlord's appeal was dismissed and the landlord was ordered to pay the respondent's appeal costs under s.20C.
Birmingham City Council v Mr R Keddie Mr G Hill [2012] UKUT 323 (LC) 25 September 2012 This appeal concerned a council's attempt to recover £5,909.57 from flat purchasers for window and balcony works, after the LVT disallowed the charge on the basis that replacement windows were unnecessary. The UT allowed the council's appeal, holding that the LVT had decided an issue (necessity of replacement) that the parties had not put in issue and had breached natural justice by failing to give the parties an opportunity to address that novel point; a s.20C order prevented recovery of the council's appeal costs from the respondents. The UT did not itself determine the remaining question of the reasonable sum because the parties reached agreement.
Crosspite Limited v Mahesh Sachdev Seema Sachdev and Kamlesh Sachdev [2012] UKUT 321 (LC) 25 September 2012 This appeal concerned whether a rent-to-rent landlord could charge £165 for retrospectively consenting to an unauthorised underletting and whether the lease permitted such a charge. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT had erred in two respects: it lacked jurisdiction to decide entitlement where the tenant had effectively agreed to pay, and the lease did permit charging reasonable legal/other expenses as a condition of consent; on the evidence the landlord had justified the £165 charge and the appeal was allowed.
FAIRHOLD MERCURY LIMITED v MERRYFIELD RTM COMPANY LIMITED [2012] UKUT 311 (LC) 11 September 2012 This appeal concerned whether two sums charged by the freeholder’s managing agent for preparing counter-notices to RTM claims were lawfully payable and recoverable under s.88 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Upper Tribunal held the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal breached natural justice by raising, of its own motion, a legal objection about the lawfulness of the invoices without giving the appellant an opportunity to respond. The UT also concluded the LVT was wrong on the law: the charges were payable under the contract with the agent and the involvement of an employed solicitor did not render them unlawful, so the claimed amounts (£650.50 and £216.00) were payable.
Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited v 31 CROYDON ROAD LIMITED [2012] UKUT 310 (LC) 11 September 2012 This appeal concerned whether a proviso in a 1985 lease capping reviewed ground rent at two‑thirds of rateable value (qualified by the words "this provision being made so as to comply with the requirements of Section 78 of the Housing Act 1980") operated as a permanent contractual cap or only to secure compliance with s78 while that statute remained in force. The Upper Tribunal held the proviso was intended only to secure statutory compliance and is spent following repeal of s78, allowed the appeal and remitted the remaining valuation to the LVT.
RICHARD THOMAS HOLLIDAY v BRECKLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL [2012] UKUT 193 (LC) 30 August 2012 This appeal concerned the correct basis for assessing compensation under s.237 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 where a council development interfered with a private easement used for vehicular access. The Tribunal held s.237(4) prescribes compensation for injurious affection (diminution in value) and does not permit a ransom-value assessment under s.63 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. The claimant was ordered to pay the council's costs of the preliminary issues; any substantive compensation claim remains to be determined or agreed.
London Borough of Havering v Ms Bee A Smith [2012] UKUT 295 (LC) 21 August 2012 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.
John Townend (Trading as John's Radio) v Julian Gott (Valuation Officer) [2012] UKUT 248 (LC) 14 August 2012 This appeal concerned whether Millside House was incapable of occupation between 1 April 2006 and 31 December 2007 because of substantial repair/upgrade works alleged by the appellant. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to produce cogent contemporaneous evidence of the dates, extent or effect of the works and that VOA records and inspection evidence indicated only limited works. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were ordered.
Npower Renewables Ltd v David Grace(Valuation Officer) [2011] UKUT 230 (LC) 13 August 2012 This appeal concerned the proper valuation of Dolgarrog hydro-electric hereditament for 2005 rates under the receipts & expenditure method, with the sole contest being forecast values and timing of Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) receipts for a five‑year hypothetical tenancy from 1 April 2003. The Valuation Tribunal for Wales adopted a compromise ROC price profile (using auction evidence for 2003/04 and intermediate figures between competing forecasts thereafter) and accepted the tenant‑receipt timing advanced by the appellant’s expert; the parties thereafter agreed a revised rateable value of £508,235 and costs to the appellant.
SATHAVAHANA VADDARAM v East Lindsey District Council [2012] UKUT 194 (LC) 13 August 2012 This appeal concerned a prohibition order served on Flat 23B as a category 1 fire hazard because the bedroom’s escape required passing through other rooms. The Upper Tribunal found that material improvements to the flat (fire door, detectors, new uPVC escape windows, lighting and heating) meant the bedroom windows now met the relevant LACORS criteria and the Building Regulations for means of escape. The tribunal quashed the prohibition order, left the improvement notice in force as varied, and awarded costs to the appellant.
Assethold Ltd v 14 Stansfield Road RTM Company Ltd [2012] UKUT 262 (LC) 30 July 2012 This appeal challenged an LVT decision allowing an RTM claim on four technical grounds: use of an earlier prescribed form, the identity/authority of the signatory, alleged defects in the RTM company's membership/register, and service of the claim notice. The UT rejected each ground, holding the form differences were immaterial and saved by section 81(1), the notice was validly signed "by authority of the company," no particularised defect in the register was demonstrated, and the tribunal could properly conclude service had been effected. The appeal was dismissed and the LVT's decision upheld.
Solartrack Plc v London Development Agency [2012] UKUT 158 (LC) 26 July 2012 This appeal concerned quantum of disturbance payable to Solartrack Plc after the LDA acquired 42–44 New Road by agreement and confirmed CPO. The Tribunal found Solartrack had not shown it would have been viable or profitable absent the acquisition, rejected many claimed heads of disturbance as not caused by or reasonably incurred because of the CPO, and accepted a notional relocation approach. Compensation for disturbance was fixed at £72,500 and detailed costs directions were given.
Liverpool Quays Management Ltd v Carol Ann Moscardini [2012] UKUT 244 (LC) 25 July 2012 This appeal concerned whether parts of service charge claims for security, service‑charge collection fees and legal fees were recoverable under the lease. The Upper Tribunal held the claimed security costs and 2009 collection fees were reasonably incurred and recoverable, but legal fees relating to claims against the developer were not recoverable under the lease. The appeal was therefore allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Peverel Property Management Peverel OM Limited v Stephen Hughes (and Others being leaseholders of various flats at Regents Park) [2012] UKUT 258 (LC) 25 July 2012 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.
South Tyneside Council v Nicholas Alfred Francis Ciarlo Hudson Alan Hudson [2012] UKUT 247 (LC) 25 July 2012 This appeal concerned whether South Tyneside Council could recover management charges from leaseholders by apportioning the ALMO's global leasehold management costs across the 702 flats and charging a per-flat sum for 2008/09–2010/11. The Upper Tribunal held the council was entitled to delegate management to the ALMO and to recover the ALMO's costs by a reasonable apportionment across the leasehold portfolio; the LVT was wrong to substitute a per‑building fee without reference to the ALMO’s apportioned costs. Subject to two earlier unappealed LVT determinations limiting recoverability for the first respondent for some years, the sums charged for the three years were held to be recoverable and reasonable.
Denise Green v 180 Archway Road Management Co Ltd [2012] UKUT 245 (LC) 23 July 2012 This appeal concerned whether a lease covenant requiring insurance "in the joint names of the Lessor and Lessee" was complied with for the years 2005–06 to 2009–10. The Upper Tribunal held the 2005–06 certificate, which expressly named the lessee, did comply and the lessee was liable for one quarter of that premium; the later policies relying on a general interest clause did not comply and the lessee was not liable for those premiums. The LVT had been wrong to focus on whether claims would have been paid rather than on strict compliance with the lease wording.
City & Country Properties Ltd v Alexander Christopher Charles Yeates [2012] UKUT 227 (LC) 17 July 2012 This appeal to the Upper Tribunal reheard an LVT decision on the premium for a statutory lease extension of Flat 25 Bishopric Court, focusing on the correct deferment rate. The Tribunal upheld a modest uplift for management risk (total uplift 0.5% above the Sportelli 5% starting point) but allowed the appeal on capital growth, ruling there was insufficient evidence to justify a higher deferment for lower long‑term growth in Horsham. The deferment rate was fixed at 5.5% and the premium at £10,762.
William Bruce Goulborn v Richard Roberts BA (Hons) MRICS [2011] UKUT 417 (LC) 17 July 2012 This appeal concerned whether a change to the rating list for 4 Sussex Street, Rhyl, to a rateable value of £8,200 should take effect from 23 March 2006, where the Valuation Officer’s alteration corrected a compilation inaccuracy and reflected a material change of circumstances (the opening of two new shops). The Tribunal held the Old Market redevelopment did constitute a material change of circumstances strengthening the hereditament’s trading position and that the composite alteration was properly given effect from the material day, 23 March 2006. The appellant’s proposal was reasonably read as challenging that date, and the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming RV £8,200 from 23 March 2006. No costs were awarded.
Liverpool City Council v Anwar Hadi Kassim [2012] UKUT 169 (LC) 11 July 2012 This appeal concerned whether affordability (the cost to occupiers and their means) is a relevant consideration in an HHSRS excess cold finding and in choosing enforcement (a prohibition order) for a one‑bed flat. The Tribunal held affordability may be considered only to a limited extent in the hazard assessment (via the vulnerable‑group assumption) but may be taken into account more freely when deciding appropriate enforcement and remedial measures. The case was remitted to the RPT to reconsider whether occupiers (over 65) would be deterred from using the installed panel heating and, if so, whether a category 1 hazard or prohibition remains justified.
Acrofame Properties Ltd v London Development Agency [2012] UKUT 107 (LC) 10 July 2012 This appeal determined compensation after compulsory acquisition of two Dagenham properties. The Tribunal rejected Acrofame's primary case that disturbance under rule (6) could be based on the site's hotel development value, valued the retail unit and flats at 4 Chequers Corner and the 8–12 New Road site on a residential redevelopment basis, disallowed holding costs and limited pre-reference fees, and awarded total compensation of £634,751.49 with specified costs orders.
Cravecrest Limited v The Sixth Duke of Westminster, The Earl of Home and Jeremy Moore Newsum Vowden Investments Limited [2012] UKUT 68 (LC) 28 June 2012 This appeal concerned the price for collective enfranchisement of 38 Wilton Crescent, principally whether Vowden could withdraw its prior agreement that its overriding lease (ORL) be acquired and whether “development hope” value for reconversion to a single house could be reflected in valuations. The Tribunal refused Vowden's late amendment and held the prior agreement was finally agreed and binding; it also held development-related value may be included in separate valuations of the headlease and the ORL but must be reduced to reflect two-stage risk. The valuers were directed to apply a 5% risk discount (15% as an alternative) and the final premium was fixed at £6,856,500 on the 5% basis.
Dashwood Properties Ltd v Beril Prema Chrisostom-Gooch [2012] UKUT 215 (LC) 26 June 2012 This appeal concerned Dashwood Properties' challenge to an LVT assessment of costs payable by tenant Beril Prema Chrisostom-Gooch after a s.42 lease renewal claim for 11 Footscray Road. The UT rejected grounds of procedural unfairness and of treating the price/value of the lease as relevant, but allowed in part that some solicitor costs were disallowed as duplicative of work done by the competent landlord, revising the solicitor awards upward modestly. The appeal was therefore partly allowed and partly dismissed.
Holicater Limited v Great Yarmouth Borough Council [2012] UKUT 131 (LC) 11 June 2012 Holicater Ltd appealed an LVT costs award where Great Yarmouth Borough Council had been allowed two pieces of counsel's advice as costs under section 9(4)(a) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The Upper Tribunal held the advices were misclassified and, allowing the appeal on that narrow point, directed written submissions on recoverability and quantum under s9(4)(e), awarded Holicater £450 for appeal fees, and on further assessment reduced the recoverable costs for the advices and related solicitor time by half with specified net figures and set‑offs.
EADEN HOMES LIMITED v DWR CYMRU CYFYNGEDIG (WELSH WATER) [2012] UKUT 153 (LC) 6 June 2012 This case concerned whether a 29 April 1983 planning permission for development at Morfa, Trearddur Bay was extant when sewer works were carried out in 2004 and whether that permission was full or only an outline (hybrid) permission as to 38 plots. The authority conceded the permission had been lawfully commenced within five years; the tribunal held the permission was a full planning permission overall but, insofar as it related to the 38 plots, it authorised layout only and did not permit erection of houses. Directions and costs were reserved for later determination.
Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v 2 Medina Villas (Hove) Limited 29 May 2012 This is an appeal against an LVT valuation of three parking spaces on reserved land at 2 Medina Villas following enfranchisement. The appellant challenged the LVT's reliance on prescription and estoppel and the deferral of value, but the judge rejected reliance on prescription/estoppel for lack of evidence and law. The judge nevertheless upheld the LVT's deferred valuation because the leases' rights of vehicular access and common use carry an incidental right to stop to load and unload, which prevents the grant of exclusive parking to third parties during the lease term.
EAGLESHAM PROPERTIES LIMITED v JOHN JEFFREY [2012] UKUT 157 (LC) 24 May 2012 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) had jurisdiction to continue an interim management order under sections 22–24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 after its 12‑month term had expired. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT lacked jurisdiction to extend the expired interim appointment and that any continuation would amount to a new order requiring service of a fresh s.22 preliminary notice (or valid dispensation). The appeal was allowed and management reverted to the freehold owner on expiry of the interim order.
SCARLE PROPERTY CO LIMITED v 177 VICTORIA ROAD (ALDERSHOT) MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2012] UKUT 170 (LC) 24 May 2012 This appeal concerned construction of lease definitions "Total Expenditure" and "Net Expenditure" and the appellant’s maximum service charge liability after one shop was converted into an additional flat. The respondent conceded the appeal and accepted that the LVT's reasoning did not withstand scrutiny; the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a differently constituted LVT for further determination. The Tribunal ordered limited costs of £500 against the respondent for unreasonably failing to communicate its concession earlier.
London Borough of Havering v George Inglis MacDonald [2012] UKUT 154 (LC) 17 May 2012 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) gave adequate written reasons for finding that communal TV/radio service charges were unreasonable and capping the charge at £26 per annum. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT’s written reasons were inadequate, that its later remarks refusing permission to appeal did not cure the defect, and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter to a differently constituted LVT for rehearing.
Beltov Properties Limited v Elliston Bentley Martin [2012] UKUT 133 (LC) 8 May 2012 This appeal concerned whether service charge demands that named the landlord but gave the managing agent's address complied with s.47(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The FTT had held the demands invalid because they did not give the landlord's address; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the landlord's appeal and upheld that finding. The UT indicated the landlord could recover charges if it served a compliant demand.
Bishopsgate Parking (No.2)Ltd and Powerfocal Limited v Welsh Ministers [2012] UKUT 22 (LC) 3 May 2012 This was a split hearing on compensation after Welsh Ministers compulsorily acquired three long-leasehold Cardiff car parks. The Tribunal fixed BPL2's market value at £43,550,000 (rejecting the higher valuation), refused the portfolio-premium and most stamp-duty uplift claims, held that capital gains tax loss may be recoverable in principle but requires further factual proof, and dismissed Powerfocal Limited's claim for consequential loss. Further factual issues (notably CGT and limited stamp-duty matters) were remitted for hearing; costs were reserved.
Country Trade Ltd v John Hanton & Others [2012] UKUT 67 (LC) 3 May 2012 This appeal concerned whether members of a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) who had recently made strongly adverse findings about the landlord in a related case and while that decision was on appeal could sit on a subsequent hearing involving the same party, and whether the LVT introduced a comparator during hearing without giving the landlord a fair opportunity to respond. The Upper Tribunal held that, applying the fair‑minded and informed observer test, there was a real possibility of apparent bias and also that the tribunal erred by introducing a tribunal‑produced comparable without affording Country Trade a fair opportunity to deal with it. The LVT decision was quashed in part and the matter remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.
Dennis Parkhill v The Environment Agency [2012] UKUT 23 (LC) 3 May 2012 This appeal concerned Mr Parkhill's claim for compensation for loss of earnings after Environment Agency flood-defence works in Hereford prevented him operating pleasure-boat trips. The Tribunal held the works were not "complete" for his purposes until a lightweight gate was provided in Easter 2011, accepted he would have intended to resume trading when able, but found the one‑off 2007 payment was a pragmatic settlement to enable removal of the boat and did not quantify ongoing trade loss. The claimant failed to prove or quantify loss of profits for want of substantiating records, so the compensation claim was dismissed (other removal/storage costs having been paid); costs were partly awarded to the Agency.
Peter Savva (aka Panayi Savva) v Liverpool City Council [2012] UKUT 109 (LC) 3 May 2012 This appeal concerned the valuation for compensation of 13 Bishop Road, Anfield, as at 19 February 1990 following compulsory acquisition. The Tribunal preferred contemporaneous evidence (including a 75‑year lease premium of £4,000 shortly after the valuation date) to the claimant's comparables and assessed the freehold value at £5,000; planning permission and an improvement grant were held not to add value because the claimant had not implemented them. The Tribunal made no order as to the costs of the reference and directed simple interest and assessment of any transfer legal costs.
The Keepers and Governors of the Possessions Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon (A Charity) v City of Westminster Council [2012] UKUT 117 (LC) 3 May 2012 This appeal concerned compensation under s.203/article 9 after Westminster City Council refused consent in February 2005 to fell a robinia protected by a TPO, and the owner of 147 Hamilton Terrace subsequently carried out underpinning works. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the robinia caused a real risk of further subsidence, that the risk and need for underpinning were reasonably foreseeable to the authority at the refusal date, and that the claimant had not failed to mitigate. It awarded £68,511.58 plus simple interest from 14 July 2005 and costs.
MERSEYSIDE POLICE AUTHORITY v Liverpool City Council [2011] UKUT 108 (LC) 30 April 2012 This case concerned Merseyside Police Authority's claim for injurious affection after a small frontage was compulsorily acquired for the Liverpool ONE scheme and a new bus station. The Tribunal found the bus station materially harmed the HQ's northern entrance and awarded compensation after concluding Liverpool ONE had not been shown to have produced betterment in office value. The Tribunal quantified remedial costs (refurbishment and access works) and awarded total compensation of £746,610 plus costs to the claimant.
Packamist Limited v Miss V Ghaznavi [2012] UKUT 124 (LC) 23 April 2012 This appeal concerned service charges for 2009/10, in particular whether an “Estate general maintenance” charge should have been disallowed because the appellant had not produced invoices at the LVT to distinguish parking costs from other maintenance. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepted the appellant’s later‑produced invoices showed the expenditure claimed, and remitted the matter to the LVT to decide reasonableness and to complete determination of the disputed items. The respondent had not fully complied with directions to identify contested items.
Solitaire Property Management Company Ltd. Holding & Management (Solitaire) Ltd v Dr Stephen Holden & Others [2012] UKUT 86 (LC) 10 April 2012 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) had power to order repayment from a leasehold reserve fund and the effect of s.20B where landlords had only made on-account service charge demands. The Upper Tribunal quashed the LVT's orders that nothing was payable and that the appellants must repay reserve funds, upheld the LVT's findings on the reasonableness of service charges for each year, and limited recovery to the lesser of the on-account amounts demanded and the LVT's reasonable sums; it also ordered that the appellants' Upper Tribunal costs be excluded from future relevant costs.
Cheale Meats Ltd v John Philip Ray [2012] UKUT 61 (LC) 26 March 2012 This appeal concerned the rateable valuation of an abattoir hereditament (Orchard Farm) and whether its lairage was an agricultural building exempt from rating. The Tribunal held the lairage was not used for the "keeping" of livestock under Schedule 5 and thus not exempt, and further held that abattoirs are a sui generis use for valuation so abattoir comparables are preferable where available. Applying selected abattoir comparables with specified adjustment factors, the Tribunal assessed the RV at £170,000 effective 1 April 2005.
Mrshall Dixon and Others v Wellington Close Management Company [2012] UKUT 95 (LC) 26 March 2012 This appeal concerned whether the numerical thresholds in s.37(5)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 for varying multiple flat leases are to be calculated at the date of application or at the hearing, and whether one resident’s communications amounted to an objection. The Upper Tribunal held the relevant date is the application date, found Mrs Mills’ emails did not constitute an objection, and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal’s procedure and evidence requirements were upheld as adequate.
Aury Shoa Rosie Shoa v Maria Nikoltseva Olga Kosstych [2012] UKUT 73 (LC) 16 March 2012 This appeal concerned the premium payable for a 69.82-year lease extension of 261 Portobello Road, where the parties disagreed on the freehold vacant possession value and the appropriate relativity to convert that freehold value to an extended lease value. The Upper Tribunal accepted the LVT's time-adjusted sale price, applied a 5% deduction for improvements and the Savills 2003 table to arrive at FHVP, derived a without-rights relativity of 87% by applying the parties' agreed deduction for tenants' statutory rights to a with-rights table figure, and allowed the appeal but capped the award at £58,000.
Reginald Charles Chapman Jane Winifred Chapman v DWR Cymru Welsh Water [2012] UKUT 89 (LC) 15 March 2012 The Chapmans claimed compensation for Welsh Water’s 2004 works and settled for £8,500 plus agreed disbursements. The UT considered competing costs claims and offers made between 2006–2012, disclosure disputes, and proportionality of incurred costs. Exercising its discretion, the Tribunal declined to make a costs order and directed each party to bear their own costs. The Tribunal found Welsh Water’s claimed costs disproportionate and the claimants’ case over‑optimistic rather than unreasonably inflated.
Israel Isaac Kaufman Chaim Yehuda Alexander Kaufman v The Borough Council of Gateshead [2012] UKUT 8 (LC) 8 March 2012 This appeal concerned compensation for compulsory acquisition of a 1,635 sqm parcel of the Lumsden redevelopment site in Gateshead, focusing on the assumed planning permission and whether ransom value arose for access to adjacent Zones A and B. The Tribunal found a residential permission could be assumed subject to specified infrastructure works, assessed the parcel's value by apportioning whole-site residential value less abnormal costs, and applied the Pointe Gourde principle while allowing ransom uplift attributable to pre-scheme demand. Compensation was fixed at £650,000 plus claim-preparation costs, and the Acquiring Authority was ordered to pay the Claimants' costs.
Alleyn Court RTM Company Limited v Micha'Al Abou-Hamden [2012] UKUT 74 (LC) 7 March 2012 This appeal concerned whether a mortgagee had authority under a wide irrevocable power of attorney in the mortgage deed to serve counter-notices and whether an earlier First Claim Notice remained valid despite not being served on qualifying tenants. The Tribunal upheld the LVT: the mortgagee was authorised to serve counter-notices under clause 10.3, and the First Claim Notice was valid on its face and remained in force until withdrawn, rendering the later Second Claim Notice ineffective. Ground 3 was conceded by the respondent.
Twenty Two Clifton Gardens Limited v Thayer Investment SA [2012] UKUT 71 (LC) 7 March 2012 This appeal concerned whether paragraphs 10–12 of Part IV of the lease for Flat 1, 22 Clifton Gardens authorised the landlord to recover costs of LVT legal and surveyor proceedings as service charges. The Upper Tribunal held the clauses do not permit recovery: paragraph 10 unambiguously relates to enforcement against other lessees, not the subject lessee; paragraph 11’s “other services” wording does not extend to those LVT costs; paragraph 12 adds nothing if 10 and 11 do not permit recovery. The appeal was dismissed and the LVT decision upheld.
Alan Kutchuklan v The Keepers and Governors of the possessions and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon [2012] UKUT 53 (LC) 1 March 2012 This appeal concerned whether a freehold transfer following leasehold enfranchisement should include a restrictive covenant preserving use as four flats and how to value the freeholder’s interest given potential redevelopment to a single house in 2046. The Tribunal refused to import the proposed covenant (appeal on covenant allowed) and fixed the enfranchisement price at £143,497, adopting an approach that values prospective legal rights by reference to what a well‑advised hypothetical purchaser would have paid in 2008 after discounts for legal and other risks.
Pauline Lawton v 55 Elgin Crescent Limited [2012] UKUT 62 (LC) 23 February 2012 This appeal concerned whether a leaseholder, Ms Lawton, was estopped or barred by laches from challenging the freeholder’s compliance with s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to disputed major works charges. The Upper Tribunal found the LVT had made a material error of fact in concluding Ms Lawton never put the respondent on notice of a s.20 complaint and set aside the LVT’s estoppel/laches decision. The UT ordered that the respondent’s LVT and UT costs are not to be treated as relevant service charge costs.
SEACON RESIDENTS COMPANY LIMITED v IBOSA OSHODIN [2012] UKUT 54 (LC) 22 February 2012 This appeal concerned whether a lessee-owned management company could recover (a) sums related to high insurance excesses for water damage, (b) interest on unpaid service charges, and (c) legal costs of recovery from two lessees. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT was wrong to set off amounts attributable to pursuing individual lessees, affirmed that interest on arrears was payable under the leases, and ruled that legal costs of recovery are recoverable as service charges. The appeal was allowed on all three grounds and the respondents’ liabilities were quantified.
Paul Henry Richard James Newbold. Marcus Clifford Thomas John Newbold. Giles Rayman Williamson James Newbold v The Coal Authority [2012] UKUT 20 (LC) 16 February 2012 This appeal concerned the validity of two damage notices served under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 in respect of Wentworth Woodhouse. The Tribunal held both notices valid: they were owners' notices given by authorised agents of the three Newbold brothers, failures to give all prescribed particulars did not invalidate them (being waived or not causing prejudice), and an agent cannot be treated as the statutory "claimant" for undisclosed principals. The Coal Authority was ordered to pay half the claimants' costs of the preliminary issue.
Michael Wilson Harris Glenis Harris v The Highways Agency [2012] UKUT 17 (LC) 6 February 2012 This appeal concerns whether Mr and Mrs Harris' blight notice was invalid because they failed to satisfy s.150(1)(b) and (c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 after a draft CPO remained unconfirmed. The Tribunal found the claimants did not prove they made reasonable endeavours to sell or that blight prevented sale except at a substantially reduced price, and that their marketing and valuation evidence was insufficient. The Highways Agency's counter-notice was upheld and the blight notice held invalid.
Om Property Management Limited v Tom Burr [2012] UKUT 2 (LC) 26 January 2012 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.
Bradmoss Ltd v Lee Stubbs. Bob Stubbs. Paul Stubbs. [2012] UKUT 3 (LC) 10 January 2012 This appeal concerned charges the landlord sought for consent to underletting (£135) and for registration of the underletting (£75). The tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction over the £75 registration fee and the Upper Tribunal treated the consent charge as an "administration charge" payable only if reasonable. On the evidence the £135 was reduced to £40 plus VAT as a reasonable administration charge.
Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited v Cherry Lilian Norton [2012] UKUT 1 (LC) 5 January 2012 This appeal concerned whether landlords could charge administration/legal fees for consenting to underletting where leases required consent not to be unreasonably withheld and some leases expressly allowed recovery of reasonable costs. The Upper Tribunal held s.19(1)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 did not bar such charges unless the lease was granted in consideration of the tenant carrying out building works, and that s.19(1)(a) permits a landlord to require payment of a reasonable sum for expenses in granting consent. The matter was remitted for assessment of the reasonableness of the specific fees and, on further submissions, the President fixed the payable fee at £40 plus VAT in each appeal.
London Borough of Southwark v Various leaseholders [2011] UKUT 438 (LC) 19 December 2011 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.
Plantation Wharf Management Company Ltd v Mr Dennis Arthur Jackson Ms Pauline Irving [2011] UKUT 488 (LC) 15 December 2011 This appeal concerned whether leases allowed a management company to recover legal costs of enforcing covenants as part of the service charge and whether the LVT properly reduced recoverable costs under s.20C. The Upper Tribunal held the leases, read as a whole, did permit recovery of legal costs incurred in enforcement within "good estate management" and allowed the appeal on that point. The UT found potential error in the LVT's s.20C reduction (notably its finding of repeated over‑budgeting) and remitted the s.20C exercise for reconsideration.
Thomas Newall Ltd v Lancaster City Council [2014] UKUT 111 (LC) 15 December 2011 This case concerns Thomas Newall Ltd's post‑judgment applications to set aside a Tribunal decision or obtain permission to appeal following compulsory acquisition of St George's Works, based on newly relied documents including a 2004 Preliminary Valuation Estimate and floor‑area material. The Tribunal applied the Ladd v Marshall criteria and concluded the claimant had not exercised reasonable diligence in obtaining the 2004 valuation before hearing and that the proposed evidence was speculative in its assumptions and unlikely to satisfy the tests for admission. The Tribunal therefore refused to re‑open the reference, refused to set aside its decision, and refused permission to appeal.
Thomas Newall Ltd v Lancaster City Council [2011] UKUT 437 (LC) 15 December 2011 This case concerned compensation for compulsory acquisition of the St George's Works site in Lancaster, with the Tribunal treating a building agreement as the source of jurisdiction and fixing the valuation date at 1 August 2006. The Tribunal decided planning‑unit and planning‑permission assumptions, preferred a valuation starting from Mr Massie’s 2005 approach adjusted to a freehold value of £1,752,000, and awarded disturbance and interest, producing a final compensation package of £2,045,043.95 plus statutory interest and costs to the claimant.
Paul Matthew Palley v London Borough of Camden [2010] UKUT 469 (LC) 12 December 2011 This appeal concerned whether lease clause 13 (and equivalent provisions) permitted the landlord to add a 10% management charge on top of other service charge heads. The LVT found no factual double-counting and the Upper Tribunal held the leases, properly construed, allowed recovery of direct, indirect and overhead costs plus a further 10% management charge. The appeal was dismissed.
Stenau Properties Limited v Karin Leek. Klaus Reckling. and Others [2010] UKUT 478 (LC) 12 December 2011 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) was entitled to refuse dispensation under s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 after finding substantial non‑compliance with the s.20 consultation requirements for major works at Crystal View Court. The LVT found the landlord’s meetings and correspondence inadequate, concluded there had been substantial failure to consult and inferred that this amounted to prejudice to leaseholders, and refused dispensation, limiting recoverable contribution. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s appeal, holding the LVT was not wrong in law to treat substantial procedural breach as amounting to prejudice and to refuse dispensation.
Mr Lakshmi Narain Khurana Mr Rajiv Khurana. Mrs Ruma Khurana v Transport for London [2011] UKUT 466 (LC) 29 November 2011 This appeal determined compensation payable to the freehold and trading occupiers of 1 Oxford Street taken under the Crossrail Act 2008, fixing valuation at 16 January 2009. The tribunal decided the freehold value at about £1,950,000 (total compensation about £2.2m) using proximate comparable evidence, allowed certain disturbance items (time and forensic accountancy fees) but disallowed abortive relocation/purchase costs for 145 Oxford Street as too remote. TfL was ordered to pay the claimants' reasonable costs of the reference.
Beaufort Park Residents Management Limited v Mr Abdolreza Sabahipour [2011] UKUT 436 (LC) 21 November 2011 This case concerned whether an underlease required the tenant, Mr Sabahipour, to admit the landlord's nominated agent, Mr Jim O'Brien, to inspect a reported leak and whether refusal amounted to a breach justifying a s.168(4) forfeiture determination. The tribunal concluded Clause 5(iii) entitled the Lessor, its "Surveyors or Agents", to enter and that Mr O'Brien, as director/secretary performing management and repair oversight, fell within that description and so was entitled to inspect. The tribunal declined to make a s.168(4) determination immediately, permitting the landlord to reapply if access was not provided on reasonable notice within six weeks.
Gala Unity Limited v Ariadne Road RTM Company Ltd [2011] UKUT 425 (LC) 25 October 2011 This appeal concerned whether an RTM company entitled to manage two structurally detached blocks of flats also acquired management rights over "appurtenant property". The Upper Tribunal held that a self-contained building under s72(2) qualifies and that the words "with or without appurtenant property" mean the premises include any appurtenant property of the building. That construction extended to demised car ports/parking spaces and incorporeal rights under the leases; the appeal was dismissed. The court acknowledged potential practical overlaps with other occupiers and encouraged agreement on estate-wide arrangements.
Graham John Aylett v Timothy Francis O'Hara [2011] UKUT 418 (LC) 19 October 2011 This appeal concerned whether a fenced riverside hereditament comprising a 50 ft river frontage, slipway, small wooden summer-house and shed used recreationally by four joint owners was domestic property for rating purposes under s66(1) LGFA 1988. The tribunal held the summer-house was not "used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation", the garden was not an appurtenance "enjoyed with" any owner’s dwelling, and the summer-house and shed were ancillary to recreational use rather than domestic storage. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.
David Haq v Eastbourne Borough Council [2011] UKUT 365 (LC) 10 October 2011 This appeal concerned a claim for compensation under s584A Housing Act 1985 after Eastbourne Borough Council served prohibition orders on Flat 7 for crowding/space (HHSRS Band A). The tribunal held the relevant valuation date was 1 October 2009 (when the operative prohibition order took effect), found the flat's separate use had become immune from planning enforcement by the four‑year rule, and held that rule 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 excluded any increase in value because the use was detrimental to occupants’ health; accordingly no compensation was payable. No costs were ordered.
Trustees of the Sloane Stanley Estate v Charles Carey Morgan and John Matthew Stephenson [2011] UKUT 415 (LC) 10 October 2011 This appeal concerned the premium payable on collective enfranchisement of Vale Court, focusing on relativity for very short leases, roof development potential, hope value for non-participating flats, deferment for reversions under five years, and disputed transfer covenants. The Tribunal set relativity for 4.74-year leases at 8%, allowed only a nominal £10,000 for speculative roof development, applied specified percentages of marriage value as "hope value" for non-participating flats, adjusted the deferment approach for very short reversions (net rental yield rounded to 3.25% plus a 5% end allowance), rejected the proposed transfer covenants, and allowed the appeal in part, fixing a revised premium of £2,961,613.
Country Trade Ltd v Marcus Noakes and Others [2011] UKUT 407 (LC) 7 October 2011 This appeal challenged LVT findings about secretarial/agents service‑charge items for 2008–2009. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, criticising the LVT for making materially adverse findings unsupported by evidence or without putting them to the landlord’s witness, and remitted those issues for rehearing before a differently constituted LVT with directions on evidence and timetable. The re‑hearing must consider lease interpretation (clauses 1.10, 7.1 and Schedule 3 para 1(a)) and reasonableness under section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Newham v Mr H Hannan, Mrs A Nessa & Others [2011] UKUT 406 (LC) 7 October 2011 This appeal concerned whether the Local Valuation Tribunal (LVT) erred in refusing to dispense with a statutory consultation requirement where the council had published a notice in the Official Journal before serving a Notice of Intention on tenants. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT did err by failing to assess whether tenants suffered significant prejudice from the breach and, on the facts, found the breach caused no prejudice and granted dispensation limited to works already executed. The decision leaves unaffected re-consultation and non-recovery of costs for the remaining blocks.
Assethold Limited v 15 Yonge Park RTM Company Limited [2011] UKUT 379 (LC) 27 September 2011 This appeal concerned whether a claim notice under s.84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was invalid because it gave an incorrect registered office for the RTM company. The Upper Tribunal held that s.81(1) can cure inaccuracies in particulars required by s.80(2)–(8), but it does not save a notice where mandatory information is omitted or wrongly given so as to amount to an absence of the required particular; the incorrect registered office therefore rendered the notice invalid. The appeal was allowed and the RTM company was held not entitled, on the relevant date, to acquire the right to manage.
The Church Commissioners v Mrs Khadija Derdabi [2010] UKUT 380 (LC) 27 September 2011 This appeal concerned whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) properly exercised its discretion under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in ordering that the landlord’s costs not be recoverable via the service charge, after finding poor management of the building for 2007–2008. The Upper Tribunal rejected the landlord’s challenge, upholding the LVT’s approach that the real matter in issue was management for that year and that a broad‑brush assessment (rather than a simplistic arithmetic percentage of the total claim) supported preventing recovery of costs. The UT concluded the respondent achieved a substantial reduction in the disputed management fees (around 42% of those fees) and that the landlord’s evidence had been adequate for the LVT to reach its decision. Appeal dismissed.
David Levitt and Jenny Levitt v London Borough of Camden [2011] UKUT 366 (LC) 21 September 2011 This appeal concerned whether the landlord must pay for replacement of heating components located within individual flats and whether the landlord fairly apportioned the service charge for communal heating replacement works. The tribunal concluded the lease requires the landlord to maintain components that, though inside a flat, form part of the building's single heating system (i.e. pipework, cylinders and radiators on the flat-side of the isolation valve) and that apportionment by rateable value was a permitted, fair and reasonable method. The tenants' appeal was dismissed.
Marie Garside and Michael Anson v RFYC Limited and B R Maunder Taylor [2011] UKUT 367 (LC) 15 September 2011 This appeal concerned whether lessees' financial means and the phasing/timing of major works are relevant when deciding if service charge costs are "reasonably incurred" under s.19(1)(a). The Upper Tribunal held the LVT was wrong to treat ability to pay as irrelevant, allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the LVT for rehearing on the merits. The Tribunal made ancillary rulings on costs, including that the manager's Upper Tribunal costs are not relevant service charge costs and refusing to determine a s.20C application that had not first been made to the LVT.
Gateway Property Holdings Ltd v 6-10 Montrose Gardens RTM Company Limited [2011] UKUT 349 (LC) 8 September 2011 This appeal concerned whether a Right to Manage (RTM) company’s application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) was in time and sufficiently supported, and whether fresh s.78 participation notices were required before the claim notice. The UT held the faxed application received 1 October 2010 lacked the required documents so the LVT had no discretion to accept it in time, setting aside the LVT’s determination; but no new s.78 invitation to participate was required in the circumstances.
Joan Philomena Antoinette Lardy Linka Leif Lardy v Rene Van Gytenbeek [2010] UKUT 347 (LC) 5 September 2011 This appeal concerned whether lessees of Flats 2 and 6 at Rockstead must contribute to specified common works and when service charges fall due, under their leases and s.27A LTA 1985. The Upper Tribunal held Flat 2 must pay one-sixth of costs for roofs, foundations and items in the Sixth Schedule (including costs relating to rebuilt Flat 6), and Flat 6 lessees must pay one-sixth for shared items (driveway, external paths, shared service pipes, roofs and foundations) but are not solely liable for Flat 6's structure. The LVT was wrong to treat Flat 6 lessees as solely liable or to rely on a post-dated licence to bind appellants; the appeal was otherwise dismissed and the matter was remitted to the LVT to quantify amounts.
Deryck Edward Wright Iris Dorothy Wright Aviva Insurance UK Ltd v Horsham District Council [2011] UKUT 319 (LC) 22 August 2011 This case concerns a s.203(1)(a) claim after Horsham District Council refused consent to fell three oak trees subject to a TPO, and the owners later carried out underpinning for subsidence damage. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that roots from one or more of the three oaks caused the 2003 subsidence, that underpinning was a natural and probable and foreseeable consequence of the council's refusal, and that heave risk did not make underpinning necessary if the trees had been removed. The tribunal awarded £23,251.25 for underpinning plus £750 for distress and inconvenience, together with costs and interest.
John Lennon v Ground Rents (Regisport) Limited [2011] UKUT 330 (LC) 18 August 2011 This appeal concerned whether a County Court transfer under para 3 Schedule 12 of the 2002 Act limited the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) to deciding only the question transferred—here, the reasonableness of an insurance premium. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding additional matters (a credit and administration charges) that were not transferred and quashed those parts of the LVT decision. The court rejected the landlord's "all or nothing" argument and confirmed the court has discretion to transfer particular questions.
Daniel Fluss v Queensbridge Terrace Residents Limited [2011] UKUT 285 (LC) 17 August 2011 This appeal concerned the proper form and scope of a deed granting permanent rights under section 1(4) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 over amenity land adjoining a block of flats, the parties having advanced competing drafts (a simple "Crews" form and a detailed "BNI" form). The Upper Tribunal held that the s.1(4) grant must secure "as nearly as may be" the same rights as enjoyed under the leases as they exist subject to statute on the relevant date, rejected the BNI draft in its present form as inconsistent with that requirement (notably for lacking 1985 Act protections, for excessive regulatory powers, and for too wide a class of users), and directed substantial amendment of the BNI draft with unresolved points to be agreed or referred back to the LVT.
Richard Jonathan Greening v Castelnau Mansions Ltd [2011] UKUT 326 (LC) 17 August 2011 This appeal concerned whether £4,663 of solicitors' fees incurred in collecting Mr Greening's unpaid service charges could be recovered from him via the lease's service charge provisions. The Upper Tribunal held those recovery costs did not fall within clause 5(5)(j)(ii) or the lease's "Total Expenditure" and reduced Mr Greening's liability by his 1.81608% share of that sum (£84.68). The Tribunal also held that events occurring after the lease (including collective enfranchisement) could not be used to alter the lease's meaning.
Tingdene Holiday Parks Ltd v Brian Cox and Eileen Patricia Cox and others [2011] UKUT 210 (LC) 8 August 2011 This appeal concerned whether landlord demands for service charges complied with the s21B LTA 1985 requirement to be accompanied by a prescribed summary, whether service charges under older leases were payable annually or quarterly, recovery of £11,116.36 spent on play‑area works, and the LVT’s exercise of its costs power under s20C. The Tribunal held the prescribed summary was not provided with the April 2008 and July 2009 demands and only complied on 20 November 2009, so earlier proceedings were premature; it also held that, except where a lease expressly provides for quarterly payments, service charges are payable annually and that long‑standing quarterly demands did not estop the landlord from insisting on annual payments. The Tribunal’s disallowance of the play‑area expenditure as an improvement was upheld. The appeal succeeded only on the point about payment periodicity and on adjustments to recoverable costs under s20C.
Andrew Wilson-Smith (Trading as Crumpet Limited) v Kevin Attrill (Valuation Officer) [2011] UKUT 287 (LC) 20 July 2011 This appeal concerned valuation for rating of a coffee shop premises at 66 Northcote Road as at 1 April 2005, focusing on whether a centrally located kitchen should be treated as ancillary or included in the zoned retail area and whether an internal ramp should be included in NIA or excluded. The Tribunal held the kitchen could be removed by minor works and, given A1/A3 permission, should be valued as part of the zoned retail area; the ramp formed usable NIA and attracted a 7.5% end allowance. The appeal was allowed and the rateable value fixed at £22,000 effective 1 April 2005.
MWH Associates Limited v Wrexham County Borough Council [2011] UKUT 269 (LC) 19 July 2011 MWH sought compensation under s.107 TCPA for a ROMP condition excluding working part of Hafod Quarry which was SSSI/SAC and contained great crested newts. The Tribunal found MWH did not intend to work the claim area and, on the balance of probabilities, a derogation licence to allow translocation and lawful working would have been refused. The claim for compensation therefore failed and no compensation was payable; costs awarded to the council.
Mark Tunstill v Primrose Mansions Limited [2011] UKUT 288 (LC) 18 July 2011 This appeal concerned whether porter salaries charged as service charges at Primrose Mansions were recoverable only to the extent they funded services the lessor was contractually obliged to provide. The Upper Tribunal held the Third Schedule service-charge items must be read as limited to services the lessor is obliged to provide under clause 5 (and, for porters, only for duties during "normal working hours"), allowed the appeal and remitted quantification to the LVT on that basis.
Ralph Rettke-Grover v John Ellott Needleman and Ann-Marie Wolfryd [2010] UKUT 283 (LC) 13 July 2011 This appeal concerns whether a lessor may recover a chartered accountant’s fees for preparing and certifying service charge accounts from a tenant under a 1978 lease. The Upper Tribunal held the accountant’s engagement and fees were not recoverable as a service under clause 4(3)(a)(iv) nor as part of the defined "total amount expended". The LVT’s contrary construction was overturned and the lessor must bear those accounting costs (or fund them via the separately agreed management fee).
EDMUND CLEARY DAPHNE ELIZABETH ROBERTSON RAE JANETTE FEATHER v LAKESIDE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED [2011] UKUT 264 (LC) 7 July 2011 This appeal concerned an LVT order under s.35 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to vary four flat leases by adding a management-fee covenant. The Lands Tribunal held the LVT could properly dispense with a formal procedural notice where particulars sufficed and no prejudice arose, but it was wrong to justify the management-fee variation under s.35(2)(f) or on the facts under s.35(2)(e); the variation was therefore dismissed. The LVT's refusal to vary as to the landlord's legal-fees claim was left intact and no compensation decision was required.
REDROW HOMES (MIDLANDS) LIMITED DICKENS HEATH (PHASE 5) MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED GALA UNITY LIMITED v DAVINDER HOTHI ROMANDA HOTHI DAVID RAMSDEN KAREN MARTIN GURDEV JHEETA HAYLEY THOMPSON S. ARUNKUMARAN R MOLY KURIAN [2011] UKUT 268 (LC) 7 July 2011 This appeal concerned leases requiring a post-year "Maintenance Adjustment" with no express timing; the Upper Tribunal implied a term that the company must calculate the Adjustment within a reasonable time and found that the company breached that term. The Tribunal held that breach does not automatically extinguish the landlord's right to recover service charges for the year; remedies are damages, account/specific performance or a rehearing by the LVT under section 27A. The UT remitted the quantum for 2007–2008 to the LVT and made a costs direction under section 20C.
MR V J AMOURGAM v VALEPARK PROPERTIES LIMITED [2011] UKUT 261 (LC) 4 July 2011 This appeal concerned whether section 21B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (commencing 1 October 2007) applies to service charge demands served after that date where the costs were incurred beforehand. The Tribunal held that s.21B applies to all demands made after its commencement unless transitional regulations provide an exception. As a result only three small items (numbers 34–36) were held not presently payable because the demands lacked the prescribed summary; they become payable once fresh compliant demands are served.
Rita Akorita v Marina Heights (St. Leonards) Ltd [2011] UKUT 255 (LC) 29 June 2011 This appeal concerned whether a lease provision requiring sums to be "ascertained and certified by the Lessor's Surveyor acting as an expert" was a condition precedent to the tenant's liability to pay service charges, and whether the insurance premiums charged were reasonably incurred under s.19 of the 1985 Act. The tribunal held that the Surveyor's certificate was a condition precedent which had not been satisfied, so no service charge was presently payable for the years in issue, but separately quantified the reasonable insurance premiums and disallowed managing-agent commissions as recoverable insurance costs.
Southall Court (Residents) Limited v Parmjeet Tiwari Ashok Tiwari [2011] UKUT 218 (LC) 20 June 2011 This appeal concerned a landlord's claim for interim service charges to fund replacement of building roofs, which the First-tier Tribunal (LVT) had largely disallowed as unreasonable. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT applied an unduly restrictive approach and that the landlord's decision to proceed with replacement fell within the range of reasonable responses, allowing the appeal and fixing the interim charge at £2,053.43 per flat. The UT treated the existence of a recently established sinking fund and the tenants' failure to respond to the section 20 consultation as relevant factual considerations but did not treat a very small sinking fund as determinative. No costs were ordered.
Harinder Kaur Parbakher v Manchester City Council [2011] UKUT 214 (LC) 9 June 2011 This appeal concerned the compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of 1221–1225 Ashton Old Road, Openshaw, with valuation date 4 September 2009. The Tribunal preferred the council’s local market evidence, fixed rents and conversion costs between the experts’ figures, adopted a 10.5% yield and assessed the capital value at £135,000, with total compensation payable of £147,125 plus a 7.5% Basic Loss Payment (£10,125) and agreed reinvestment costs of £2,000. No costs order was made under the simplified procedure.
Halifax General Insurance Services v Teignbridge District Council [2011] UKUT 213 (LC) 7 June 2011 This appeal concerned Halifax's claim for £7,602 after Teignbridge refused permission to reduce a TPO-protected oak alleged to have caused subsidence to an adjacent bungalow. The Tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that root moisture loss from the oak caused the cracking on the balance of probabilities and found the partial underpinning and repairs were necessary, proportionate and reasonably priced. The claim was allowed in full; no costs order was made under the simplified-procedure regime.
Kathleen O'Donoghue and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport [2011] UKUT 203 (LC) 20 May 2011 This case concerns compensation for 27 land interests compulsorily acquired for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (London tunnels), chiefly subsoil "tube" interests and two small leasehold slivers of playing field. The Tribunal accepted the acquiring authority's valuation evidence, held that the authority had adequately attempted to notify claimants, and fixed compensation at £50 for each of the 26 subsoil interests and £100 in total (£50 each) for the two leasehold slivers. No order as to costs was made.
Michael Porter (Valuation Officer) v Trustees of Gladman Sipps [2011] UKUT 204 (LC) 20 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether 19 speculative office units were hereditaments on 1 May 2006 for rating purposes. The tribunal and Upper Tribunal held they were not, because they lacked features (small power outlets, tea points, full-height partitioning and associated works) which a reasonable occupier would require before beneficial occupation and which, when provided, would form part of the hereditament. The Valuation Officer's appeal was dismissed.
Walter Morrissey v Wigan Council [2011] UKUT 192 (LC) 16 May 2011 This appeal determined the open market value of 487 Liverpool Road (a poor-condition late Victorian end-terrace) for compulsory acquisition compensation. The tribunal preferred the council’s evidence over the claimant’s unsupported valuation and limited weight to a repair schedule prepared without inspection, and assessed market value at £35,750. The tribunal made no order for costs.
(1) Mrs Maries Jean-Paul (2) Ms Jenny Jean-Paul v The Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Southwark [2011] UKUT 178 (LC) 9 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether letters sent in 2005–06 by Southwark Council satisfied the section 20B(2) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requirement to notify tenants that costs for major works had been incurred and would be recoverable as service charges. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT, finding the letters, read in context, did notify tenants even though the quoted sum was an earlier estimate, and dismissed the tenants' challenge on that point. The UT also held that for section 20B "costs incurred" means costs actually paid (incurred by payment), so payments made in March 2006/2007 might fall outside the 18‑month window and must be deducted if so.
Kenneth Charles Lanceley v Wirral Borough Council [2011] UKUT 175 (LC) 9 May 2011 Mr Lanceley claimed compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for alleged depreciation of his house following opening of a bypass adjacent to his property. The Tribunal held the burden was on him to prove depreciation caused by physical factors from the road, rejected claims for non-pecuniary personal losses, and found only marginal depreciation, awarding £1,000 and no costs.
(1) The Earl LCadogan (2) Cadogan Estates Limited v Cadogan Square Limited [2011] UKUT 154 (LC) 21 April 2011 This appeal concerned the premium payable on collective enfranchisement of six flats at 38 Cadogan Square, including how to value hope (marriage) value, the effect of statutory enfranchisement rights, the caretaker’s flat rent, section 42 notice effects and the appropriate restrictive covenant. The Upper Tribunal allowed only a small hope value (5% for one flat), applied a 25% deduction to strip out the benefit of rights under the 1993 Act, reduced the caretaker’s market rent by 50% to reflect user restrictions, found the s.42 notice on flat 1 had no effect at the valuation date, adopted a 5.25% deferment rate and directed the purchaser’s form of restrictive covenant; the total premium was set at £2,212,179.
Mandarin Corporation Ltd (formerly Thai Concept and Cuisine Ltd) v Kathryn Patricia Phillips (VO) [2011] UKUT 115 (LC) 21 April 2011 This appeal concerned whether a further material change of circumstance (MCC) allowance was due to Mandarin Corporation for disruption caused by the St Mary Street works associated with the St David's 2 redevelopment. The tribunal found that a 20% MCC allowance already granted (with a negotiated effective date of 10 January 2007 reflected in VO/committee communications) had taken the St Mary Street effects into account. The appeal was dismissed and Mandarin ordered to pay the Valuation Officer’s costs.
Gerald Dunbar v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2011] UKUT 169 (LC) 20 April 2011 This appeal concerned Mr Dunbar's claim for disturbance compensation from Blackburn with Darwen BC following the sale of 23 Alaska Street, specifically whether a bridging loan (£10,620) used to buy 34 Lytham Road could be recovered. The Tribunal held the bridging loan was not recoverable: the replacement purchase occurred more than one year before entry so could not be claimed under s.10A LCA 1961, and the claimant was not in occupation so rule (6) did not apply. The bridging-loan claim was disallowed; modest remaining disputes (carpets and surveyor's fees) were left for settlement.
Themeline Limited v Vowden Investments Limited (in administration) [2011] UKUT 168 (LC) 20 April 2011 This appeal concerned valuation and contractual allocation issues arising from collective enfranchisement of 39 Wilton Crescent, notably whether the nominee purchaser could insist on a bespoke contractual covenant preserving the valuation-date physical state of Flat 1 and whether the intermediate owner (Vowden) was entitled to a share of marriage value and on what basis. The Tribunal rejected the protective contractual clause as inappropriate and upheld LVT’s refusal to imply such a term, allowed Vowden’s claim to a share of marriage value, but restricted marriage value to that attributable to participating tenants obtaining new long leases of their individual flats (excluding an uplift premised on grant of a single lease of the whole building). The valuation figures were adjusted accordingly.
Earl Cadogan v Betul Erkman [2011] UKUT 90 (LC) 11 April 2011 This appeal reheard cross‑appeals from the LVT about the price and a restrictive covenant for collective enfranchisement of 42 Cadogan Square. The Tribunal upheld most of the LVT’s valuation approach, fixed the total premium at £2,220,000 (apportioned largely to the freehold), rejected asserted amalgamation value for lack of evidence, and imposed a tightened user covenant short of requiring occupation as a single family. Procedural points included allowing the freeholder to raise an amalgamation point at rehearing but finding the asserted additional value unproven.
Bristol City Council v Aldford Two LLP [2011] UKUT 130 (LC) 30 March 2011 Bristol City Council served an improvement notice for a Category 1 excess-cold hazard at a two‑storey maisonette; the RPT quashed the notice after inspection and having regard to tenants’ satisfaction and tribunal members’ impressions. The Upper Tribunal held that while those matters are relevant, the RPT erred by not revising the HHRS scoring in light of evidence that the heaters were adequate; on the material before it, replacement would have been unreasonable and a hazard awareness notice was the appropriate remedy. The council’s appeal was dismissed and the respondent awarded costs.
Claristene Doreen Yarde v London Borough of Newham [2011] UKUT 125 (LC) 29 March 2011 This appeal concerned compensation under a general vesting declaration for 24 Buckingham Road, with the valuation date held to be the vesting date, 15 January 2008. The tribunal accepted the acquiring authority's valuation approach: start with open‑market value in good order (about £300,000) then deduct contemporaneous refurbishment costs and a purchaser's reasonable profit, reaching £200,000 compensation plus statutory interest. The claimant's higher valuation and pre‑vesting repair estimates were rejected as insufficiently reliable, and the claimant was ordered to pay costs of £3,000.
London Borough of Newham v Terry Navarro Peart [2011] UKUT 126 (LC) 29 March 2011 This appeal concerned the amount of compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of 72 Cranmer Road, vested 5 November 2002. The owner did not participate and the acquiring authority’s expert valuation evidence was accepted, the tribunal deducting estimated repair/refurbishment costs and allowing a modest purchaser profit/risk to arrive at market value. Compensation was fixed at £175,000 with statutory interest; no order as to costs.
George Wimpey Bristol Ltd v Gloucestershire Housing Association Ltd [2011] UKUT 91 (LC) 14 March 2011 This appeal concerned an application under s.84(1) LPA 1925 to modify a 1936 restrictive covenant to allow residential development of land west of a prescribed line as part of a larger consented scheme. The Tribunal found the proposed residential use was reasonable and the covenant impeded it, but refused modification because the covenant secured substantial practical benefits to several identified objectors (including diminution of value and loss of amenity, and flood-risk/precedent concerns); the application therefore failed and was dismissed. The Tribunal also noted the applicants’ deliberate commencement of works on restricted land weighed against granting relief.
Robert Poole v South West Water Ltd [2011] UKUT 84 (LC) 9 March 2011 This appeal concerned the sole remaining dispute over the claimant’s surveyor’s fees after South West Water installed a water main across Fentonfenna Farm. The Tribunal held that the RICS Guidance Note is the appropriate test for assessing such surveyor’s fees and, applying it, found the claimed time, hourly rate and expenses reasonable, awarding £3,219.50. The Tribunal declined to apply CPR 44.5 to determine the substantive fee and made no order as to the costs of the reference.
Earl Cadogan v Cadogan Square Properties Ltd [2011] UKUT 68 (LC) 16 February 2011 This appeal concerned the Upper Tribunal's review of an LVT decision fixing the purchase price for collective enfranchisement of 23 Cadogan Square. The Tribunal corrected obvious arithmetical and marriage‑value calculation errors in the LVT’s figure and reduced the price to £2,021,700, dismissed the other grounds of appeal, and refused to include a post‑completion contractual claw‑back or provisional pricing mechanism. It also set out that it will consider any application for permission to appeal on the claw‑back point but indicated such permission is unlikely.
David Charles Newman v Cambridgeshire County Council [2011] UKUT 56 (LC) 14 February 2011 This appeal concerned recovery of the claimant's surveyor's fees after compulsory acquisition of part of Mr Newman's garden under the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway Order. The Tribunal assessed competing schedules of time and rates and held that time-based fees at the hourly rates originally suggested (professional £120, travel £60) were reasonable and proportionate, excluding time spent on the Tribunal application. The Tribunal awarded £6,306 plus VAT in surveyor's fees and made no costs order for the written-representations reference.
Richard Marcus Llewellyn Denby v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2011] UKUT 65 (LC) 11 February 2011 This appeal concerned the compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of 98 Seaton Road, Hessle, with the valuation date 19 July 2010. The tribunal found the council's July 2010 repair estimate and allowances overstated and, having regard to earlier valuation evidence and a subsequent post-vesting sale, fixed the open market value at £65,000. Service on the absent owner was dispensed with after the acquiring authority's tracing efforts.
(1) John Crampton & Jeanette Crampton (2) John Sanpher v Park Place 96 Limited [2011] UKUT 57 (LC) 10 February 2011 This appeal concerned county court claims for unpaid service charges brought by Park Place 96 Ltd against flat lessees and two limited issues were permitted on appeal: whether a separately stated voluntary administration charge had been sued for, and whether lessees were entitled to credits from amounts held as "provisions for liabilities" (the Reserve Fund Issue). The Tribunal found the voluntary administration charge was shown separately and was not claimed in the county court proceedings, so no deduction was allowed on that basis. It allowed appellants proportionate repayment credits from retained provisions calculated by reference to accounting dates and tenancy, and substituted reduced sums payable: Cramptons £784.44 and Sanpher £367.35.
(1) Graham keith Toms (2) Susan Marion Toms v The Secretary of State for Transport [2011] UKUT 45 (LC) 3 February 2011 This appeal concerns a Part I Land Compensation Act 1973 claim by Mr and Mrs Toms for diminution in value of their Willesborough home caused by HS1. The Tribunal admitted the Secretary of State’s expert reports despite a service dispute, preferred the compensating authority’s evidence over the claimants’, found the claimants’ conduct obstructive and misleading, awarded £1,500 for loss of value, and ordered the claimants to pay half the authority’s claimed costs (£6,262.50).
Ember Homes Limited v Howard Lucas [2011] UKUT 42 (LC) 28 January 2011 This appeal concerned tenants' challenges to service charges for 2005–08 and the LVT's decision largely disallowing recovery for failure to comply with a lease clause and the 18‑month rule. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT's decision was confused, lacked necessary year‑by‑year factual findings and was unsupportable on the evidence, so the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the LVT for fresh determination under s.27A (and s.20C).
Mrs Kathleen Roberts v The Coal Authority [2011] UKUT 38 (LC) 28 January 2011 Mrs Roberts claimed a Regulation 7 entitlement to compensation for inconvenience from remedial works carried out by the Coal Authority after garden subsidence. The Tribunal found no compliant section 6 schedule had been served because the documents did not state, for each remedial item, the cost the Authority considered reasonable, and therefore Regulation 6(1)(b) (and so 6(1)(d) for the claim) were not satisfied. The reference was dismissed and no costs were ordered.
Mr John roger Hornby and Others v The Borough Council of Gateshead [2010] UKUT 426 (LC) 20 January 2011 This appeal concerned compensation for 21 residential properties compulsorily acquired by Gateshead Borough Council under a 2003 CPO, with the valuation date 1 March 2005. The tribunal held that valuation must follow the statutory assumptions in ss.5, 6 and 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 rather than a simple "no‑scheme" approach, that mid‑2001 resident/landlord consultations amounted to an "indication" affecting comparables, and set specific awards after discounting affected comparables. The council was ordered to pay the claimants' costs because its expert gave misleading evidence.
Sheldon Square Residents Association v St George North London Limited [2011] UKUT 13 (LC) 20 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether an estate charge payable under a headlease ("Sector 2 - Building Estate Costs") could be recovered from underlessees by reference to percentages and provisions in their underleases. The Tribunal found the underlease drafting clumsy but, read in its commercial context, showed the parties intended underlessees to indemnify the headlessee for their fair proportion of that estate charge. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT's construction and dismissed the appeal, allowing proportionate recovery from underlessees.
Ledburn Properties Limited v East Cheshire Council [2011] UKUT 18 (LC) 14 January 2011 This case concerned the compensation payable to Ledburn Properties after compulsory acquisition of 0.77 acres (part of Heawood Hall) for the A34 bypass, principally the claim for injurious affection to the retained land. The tribunal fixed "before" value at £1,325,000 and "after" value at £800,000, awarding £525,000 for diminution in value, dismissed the claimed mortgage interest, allowed £4,000 for a director's time and ordered total compensation of £544,400 plus costs. The acquiring authority was ordered to pay the claimant's costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
Hemphurst Limited v Durrels House Limited [2011] UKUT 6 (LC) 5 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether a nominee purchaser under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 may acquire only part of premises demised by a single lease (elective severance) or must take the whole lease. The Upper Tribunal held that ss.2(1)(b) and 2(3) can be read to permit acquisition of only those parts of a leasehold interest reasonably necessary for proper management or maintenance of common parts/appurtenant property. The Tribunal also found the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal had decided a whole-lease point that was not properly before it and allowed the landlord’s procedural/jurisdictional appeal. Both appeals were allowed and the matter was remitted to the LVT for further proceedings consistent with the UT’s guidance.
Executors of Mrs N Streeter v Trustees of T T Streeter Will Trust [2011] UKUT 1 (LC) 4 January 2011 This case concerned a preliminary issue under section 23 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 after land was compulsorily acquired in 1989 for an M11 motorway service area (MSA) and a larger hotel planning permission was granted in 2005. The tribunal held the 2005 hotel permission was not "additional development" outside the project: providing overnight accommodation within the off-line MSA fell within the purposes of the original compulsory purchase, so the claim for further compensation failed. The claimants were ordered to pay the acquiring authority’s costs.
Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited v Miss Stephanie Sherwin [2010] UKUT 412 (LC) 10 December 2010 This appeal concerned whether s.20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 limits recoverability of advance service charge instalments or balancing charges and whether the LVT correctly applied s.20B by pro rata reductions. The Upper Tribunal held s.20B does not apply to payments on account of prospective costs and, applied correctly to balancing demands, only bars actual costs incurred more than 18 months before the demand — in this case no balancing costs were time-barred, so the LVT’s reductions were set aside and the landlord’s balancing demands were upheld in full (£817.75 for 2006/7 and £1,198.38 for 2007/8). The UT also found the LVT was wrong to order reconsideration and to require disproportionate documentation in the permission-to-appeal process.
(1) Cadogan Square Properties Limited (2) 31 Cadogan Square Freehold Limited (3) 37 Cadogan Square Freehold Limited (4) Cadogan Square Limited (5) Betul Erkman v The Earl Cadogan [2010] UKUT 427 (LC) 3 December 2010 This appeal fixed the deferment rates to be used when valuing five freehold reversions of Cadogan Square properties with unexpired leases of about 15.6–17.8 years. The Tribunal adopted the Sportelli formula (DR = RFR + RP − RGR) as the starting point, rejected the landlord's net-rental-yield/graph method for these term lengths, adjusted components for sub‑20 year terms and set specific deferment rates: 23, 38 and 42 Cadogan Square at 5.25% and 31 and 37 Cadogan Square at 5.5%. The Tribunal treated 31 and 37 as flats for deferment-rate purposes and left RFR at 2.25%.
John Reeves (Valuation Officer) v Laurence Tobias and Others [2010] UKUT 411 (LC) 22 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether ten resident parking spaces at Mill Street car park were domestic property under s66(1)(d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 or rateable hereditaments. The Valuation Tribunal treated them as "private storage premises" for "articles of domestic use"; the Upper Tribunal held that paragraph (d) did not extend to car parking spaces and that motor vehicles are not "articles of domestic use" for that purpose. The VT's decision was overturned and the non‑domestic list entries restored.
George LAnthony Denton-Ashley v London Borough of Lambeth [2010] UKUT 405 (LC) 17 November 2010 This case concerned compensation for the deemed compulsory acquisition of Mr Denton-Ashley’s long-leasehold maisonette under the Myatts Field North Estate CPO, with the sole issue being the open market value under the Land Compensation Act 1961. The tribunal preferred recent, proximate estate comparables, made adjustments for poorer location, condition and access, fixed market value at £153,750, and added statutory home loss (£15,375) and disturbance (£1,320) for a total award of £170,445; no costs were ordered.
Peverel OM Limited v (1) Andrew Stephen Wernick (2) Jenny Isabella Wernick [2010] UKUT 402 (LC) 15 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether Peverel OM Ltd could recover particular 2005/06 service‑charge items for The Heights, notably concierge/on‑costs and various miscellaneous items. The Lands Tribunal dismissed Peverel's appeal on concierge and on‑costs, increasing the disallowance to £12,239.63 for unsupported or excessive items, but allowed the appeal on miscellaneous items, raising the recoverable figure for those items to £15,884.36. The Tribunal also directed that Peverel's costs of the Lands Tribunal proceedings are not to be treated as relevant service‑charge costs recoverable from residents.
Feargal Brennan v St Paul's Court Limited [2010] UKUT 403 (LC) 11 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether s.20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 bars recovery of costs reallocated to tenants more than 18 months after the works where tenants had paid interim sums on account. The Upper Tribunal held s.20B is engaged only where a "demand for payment" is served in respect of costs incurred over 18 months earlier, and that an accountant's certificate or prior interim payments do not themselves constitute such a demand. The tribunal therefore rejected the s.20B challenge and left the LVT's factual findings and reallocation directions in place.
Nigel J G Mockford v Durham County Council [2010] UKUT 371 (LC) 11 November 2010 This was a purchase-notice reference about c.242 sqm of former school/amenity land behind 22 The Bank, Barnard Castle, with dispute over residual valuation inputs, principally construction cost, for a hypothetical school. The tribunal accepted contemporaneous BCIS-derived build costs (£500/m²) over the claimant expert's lower, unsupported figures, found development value nil and amenity value £500, and awarded compensation of £500. The tribunal also made costs directions: the acquiring authority to pay the claimant's surveyor fee (£1,410) and the claimant to pay the authority's costs (£2,795).
David Clive Trunkfield (Valuation Officer) v London Borough of Camden [2010] UKUT 391 (LC) 28 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether five 2005 rating assessments for adjoining office buildings occupied in part by Camden Council should be merged into a single hereditament. The Tribunal below ordered merger but the Upper Tribunal held that contiguity alone did not outweigh factors such as structural separation, separate parts of occupancy and inability to ring the premises on a map, and directed two separate entries at agreed rateable values. The council (respondent) was ordered to pay the appellant's costs.
Hemingby Agricultural Traders Ltd (1) Judith Margaret Taylor (2) v East Lindsey District Council [2010] UKUT 390 (LC) 28 October 2010 This appeal concerned the amount of compensation for compulsory acquisition of dilapidated, Grade II listed terrace premises in Horncastle, with valuation date 5 November 2004. The Tribunal held that valuation must apply the Land Compensation Act 1961 planning assumptions together with section 49 of the 1990 Act, rejected the claimants' comparables-based valuation as unpersuasive, and awarded £32,500 (with costs directions to follow). The acquiring authority's residual/speculator approach was accepted because no profitable development could be shown under the statutory assumptions.
OM Limited v New River Head RTM Company Ltd [2010] UKUT 394 (LC) 28 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether £121,742.39 represented "accrued uncommitted service charges held by" OM Ltd on the date the RTM company acquired the right to manage, and whether the tribunal could award interest. The Upper Tribunal held that those sums were not amounts actually held by OM on acquisition and that s94 CA 2002 transfers only sums (cash/investments) actually held and any interest that had actually accrued on them; the LVT had no power to award additional or hypothetical interest. OM's appeal succeeded and the LVT's decision was quashed; the RTM company's appeal failed.
(1) Israel Moskovitz (2) Chavi Moskovitz (3) Solomon Reich (The Trustees of Achiezer Arad) v 75 Worple Road RTM Company Limited [2010] UKUT 393 (LC) 27 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether an RTM claim notice which was posted on 16 June 2009 but specified a counter-notice deadline of 16 July 2009 complied with statutory timing requirements. The Upper Tribunal held that, for a notice sent by post, the relevant date "given" is the date of receipt in the ordinary course of post (deemed service), not the posting date, and that the notice therefore failed to comply with the one‑month minimum in s80(6). The statutory saving in s81(1) did not rescue the defect because the incorrect date was not an "inaccuracy in particulars". The LVT decision in favour of the RTM company was set aside and the application dismissed.
Mrs M Keates v Haringey London Borough Council [2010] UKUT 392 (LC) 27 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether a letter of 14 October 2008 from the claimant's insurers amounted to a timely "claim" under the Haringey Tree Preservation Order (TPO), thereby avoiding time-bar and giving the Tribunal jurisdiction. The President held that the letter, read as a whole, unequivocally asserted entitlement to compensation and thus constituted a valid claim; the Tribunal had jurisdiction and the compensating authority was ordered to pay the claimant's costs of the preliminary issue.
(1) Adrian Robertson & Kathleen Robertson (2) Andrew Spark & Annette Spark v Manchester Airport plc [2010] UKUT 370 (LC) 25 October 2010 This appeal concerned two linked claims under the Land Compensation Act 1973 by owners of Smith Lane Farm and Burnside alleging depreciation from Manchester Airport’s new Runway 2. The Tribunal found that an about 3 dB daytime noise increase by the first claim day (and predicted greater increases) and occasional wake‑vortex vibration were compensatable physical factors and awarded Burnside £40,000 and Smith Lane Farm £72,500; aircraft‑fumes claims were rejected. The airport was also ordered to pay claimants’ costs, in part because it had resisted disclosure of a nearby confidential settlement which was nevertheless admitted.
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Amratlal Patel [2010] UKUT 334 (LC) 19 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether the Residential Property Tribunal (RPT) misinterpreted "imminent risk of serious harm" in section 40(1)(b) of the Housing Act 2004 after a council took emergency remedial action at a house with HHSRS category 1 scores for excess cold, food safety and electrics. The Upper Tribunal held the RPT did not err: "imminent" requires urgency and a real prospect ("a good chance") of serious harm occurring soon, and the 28‑day minimum period for improvement notices is not the temporal yardstick for emergency action. The RPT's variation—confirming emergency action only for electrical hazards and not for excess cold or food safety—was therefore upheld and the council's appeal dismissed.
Regent Management Limited v Mr Thomas Jones [2010] UKUT 369 (LC) 15 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether an LVT had applied the correct legal test and burden when determining the reasonableness of service-charge items for 2004–2007, specifically parking-control/signage costs and administration/management charges. The Upper Tribunal found the LVT had erred in law, granted a rehearing, and on that rehearing held the parking-signage and the administration/management charges were reasonably incurred and chargeable, setting aside the LVT’s disallowance and reductions.
(1) William Henry Bond (2) Holme Sand & Ballast (3) Hanson Quarry Products Limited v Dorset County Council [2010] UKUT 364 (LC) 11 October 2010 This case concerned whether Hanson could claim compensation under section 107 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by valuing its leasehold loss on the basis that, but for European site designations and confirmed modification orders, it would have been granted a new post‑2008 lease. The Tribunal held that section 117 brings in only the rules in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 "so far as applicable" and does not import section 9 or the 1961 Act's closing provisions, that HSB (the reversionary lessee) is a person interested in the land, and that Hanson's alleged loss from the lost prospect of a new lease was only indirectly attributable to the modification order and so could not form the basis of s107 compensation.
Redendale Limited v (1) Mr Salim Modi (2) Mr Kantilal Modi [2010] UKUT 346 (LC) 5 October 2010 This appeal concerned recoverability of various service charge items for years 2004–2008 at a block of flats whose freehold company (Redendale) charged residents. The Tribunal held that general balancing transfers to a reserve and indefeasible loan balances were not authorised by the lease and disallowed certain legal fees and insurance finance charges, allowed insurance premiums and reduced management fees for poor performance, and found the tenants had overpaid £1,455.08. The tenants' section 20C relief and claims for their Tribunal costs were refused.
Christian and Steven Wragg v Mark Harwood (Valuation Officer) [2010] UKUT 350 (LC) 30 September 2010 This case concerns an appeal against a Valuation Officer's backdated alteration of the 2000 rating list to a higher rateable value for shop premises, with the alteration made effective from 1 October 2001. The Tribunal held that the material day was 1 October 2001, that regulation 13A applied because the alteration was made before 31 March 2006, and therefore the alteration validly took effect from that date. The appellants' contention that the lease was voidable for alleged landlord deception did not prevent the VO applying the regulations, and the appeal was dismissed.
Samantha Jayne Hanley v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [2010] UKUT 351 (LC) 30 September 2010 This case concerns a Prohibition Order served on Mrs Hanley by Tameside Council prohibiting use of a converted attic bedroom because of Category 1 and 2 hazards (notably falls on stairs and collision/entrapment). The RPT upheld the Order, and on review the Upper Tribunal found the RPT had erred in stating, as a general rule, that compliance with the Building Regulations is not a material consideration under the Housing Act/HHSRS. The Tribunal nevertheless dismissed the appeal, concluding the RPT’s factual findings about the collision/entrapment hazard supported the same outcome and that the Order was fair, reasonable and proportionate.
Mrs J E Wilson v Lesley Place (RTM) Company Ltd [2010] UKUT 342 (LC) 22 September 2010 This appeal concerned whether an RTM company’s direct and indirect costs of formation and administration could be recovered from a leaseholder as service charge under the lease (clauses 3 and 5). The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the LVT’s earlier determinations and (obiter) stating that company formation and running costs do not fall within the lease’s definition of recoverable expenditure. The Tribunal also held that certain accounts and legal/professional fees for recovery of sums from tenants were not recoverable under clause 5 or generally under clause J except where clause J created a specific indemnity.
Sandra Tew v South Northamptonshire Council [2010] UKUT 333 (LC) 20 September 2010 This case fixed compensation for compulsory purchase of a long-vacant Grade II listed former public house in Blisworth vesting on 6 June 2007. The Tribunal rejected valuation on pub/restaurant use as inferior and accepted residential redevelopment for six units, applied a residual valuation with specified developer assumptions, and awarded £444,725 plus the claimant's costs.
Vines Limited v Andrew Quentin de Mauny (Valuation Officer) [2010] UKUT 322 (LC) 20 September 2010 This appeal concerned the 2005 rating assessment of a newly built BMW/Mini dealership at Salfords and focused on the correct main space rental rate, relativities for the Mini showroom and a valet building, and possible quantum/masking allowances. The UT upheld the Valuation Tribunal’s main space rate of £160/m2 (with agreed 5% additions where relevant), fixed the Mini showroom at the same rate (£168/m2 including AC adjustment), valued the valet building at 45% of main space (£72/m2), found no quantum or masking allowances were justified, and dismissed the appeal, restoring the assessment at £307,000 and awarding costs to the VO on the standard basis.
(1) 31 Cadogan Square Freehold Limited (2) 37 Cadogan Square Freehold Limited v The Earl Cadogan [2010] UKUT 321 (LC) 16 September 2010 This appeal concerned valuation methodology and the treatment of future redevelopment value when determining the price payable by the freeholder under statutory leasehold enfranchisement for 31 and 37 Cadogan Square. The Tribunal rejected the LVT's "top-down" approach and adopted a "bottom-up" method, starting with agreed flat values and adding a modest uplift (15% of potential development value) to reflect the prospect of redevelopment in 2023, with deferment (later fixed at 5.5%) applied separately. Final purchase prices were determined accordingly.
Abbey Investments Limited v London Development Agency [2010] UKUT 325 (LC) 16 September 2010 This case concerns compensation for compulsory acquisition of 77–82 Victoria Dock Road. The Tribunal rejected the claimant’s notional schemes on the reference land under section 16(3) (they would unacceptably prejudice adjacent development) but found a realistic hope under section 14(3) that planning permission could be obtained for a larger, assembled mixed‑use scheme, and awarded open market value of £1,850,000 (plus agreed additional sums and costs). The valuation used comparable transactions cross‑checked by residual appraisal, applied a 20% assembly risk allowance, and adopted a house‑builder procurement cost model.
Mr Benn Miebaka v Primeview Developments Ltd [2010] UKUT 324 (LC) 8 September 2010 This appeal concerned whether the tenant, Mr Miebaka, was liable at the date of a 21 November 2008 interim service‑charge demand for electrical repairs (£221.29) and whether the landlord had to provide estimates or comply with statutory consultation before making that interim demand. The tribunal held that clause 3(3) of the lease validly obliged payment on account in advance of incurring the underlying expense, that the statutory consultation requirements did not bite because the amount was below the threshold, and that the electrical sum (and £600 legal fees) were payable while a small management fee was correctly disallowed.
Barbara Haywood and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport [2010] UKUT 298 (LC) 20 August 2010 This case concerns compensation for 35 compulsory acquisitions of subsoil interests for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (London tunnels) where notices to treat/entry were served in 2001. The Tribunal fixed nominal compensation (generally £50) for most subsoil interests, refused compensation for a set of leases created after service of the notice to treat, and stayed determination of one claim pending investigation of alleged damage. Statutory interest was awarded from 1 September 2009 and no order as to costs was made.
OBSIDIAN FG LIMITED AND OTHERS v The Secretary of State for Transport [2010] UKUT 299 (LC) 20 August 2010 This case concerned compensation for 21 subsoil interests compulsorily acquired for the London section of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. The Tribunal awarded a nominal £50 for each freehold and existing leasehold claim where there was no market and no evidence of disturbance, and awarded nil for four "new lease" claims created after service of the notice to treat. No order as to costs was made.
Michael Kingsley v The Highways Agency [2010] UKUT 309 (LC) 19 August 2010 The case concerns the Highways Agency's application for leave to seek a further s.17 Land Compensation Act 1961 certificate after a reference had been made by the claimant following a blight notice and an earlier 2000 s.17 certificate. The President refused leave, holding that a later s.17 certificate cannot negate or cut down the planning-permission assumptions the Tribunal must make under s.15(5) when assessing compensation. The decision also relied on s.14(3A) to confirm that contrary opinions in later certificates cannot be used to limit s.15(5) assumptions.
Peverel OM Limited v (1) Andrew Stephen Wernick (2) Jenny Isabella Wernick [2010] UKUT 271 (LC) 12 August 2010 This appeal concerned parts of LVT determinations on service charges for 2005/6 and 2006/7 at a large block managed by Peverel OM Ltd. The Upper Tribunal allowed Peverel's appeals in part, finding the LVT gave inadequate reasons (and caused prejudice) for reductions to concierge/on‑costs and certain miscellaneous 2005/6 items, and remitted those matters for reconsideration; it dismissed the appellant's challenge on window‑cleaning; and it upheld disallowance of parts of the 2006/7 redecoration charges and the related management fee. Directions were given for fresh evidence and exchange of submissions on the remitted issues.
Michael Stanley Staunton v Norma Kaye and Alfred Taylor [2010] UKUT 270 (LC) 9 August 2010 This case concerned whether a demand for drain repair works at Barracks Square was a recoverable service charge and whether statutory notice and consultation requirements had been complied with. The tribunal found the respondents were the landlords, the demand fell within s18 as a service charge, any s47 defect had been cured before hearing, and dispensation under s20ZA was appropriate. The appellant was ordered to pay a limited amount of £999.32. The appeal was allowed to that extent.
Mrs E J Thomas and Others v Bridgend County Borough Council [2010] UKUT 268 (LC) 29 July 2010 Homeowners near the Hendre Relief Road claimed compensation for diminution in property value from noise and nuisance, but section 19(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 barred their claims because the road was not adopted within three years of opening. The tribunal held that s.19(3) is not incompatible with article 1 of Protocol 1 or article 6 ECHR, so the claimants’ preliminary challenge failed and the second preliminary issue did not arise. The claimants were ordered to pay the council’s costs.
Jonathan David Zenios v Tomara Zenios [2010] UKUT 260 (LC) 26 July 2010 This case concerns owners seeking modification of restrictive covenants so they could add a first-floor extension above a side garage in Hampstead Garden Suburb. The Tribunal held the covenants served to preserve the Suburb’s amenities and that the Trust’s power to prevent the extension was a practical benefit of substantial advantage; money would not adequately compensate the Trust and the Trust would be injured by modification. The application under s.84(1) LPA (grounds (aa) and (c)) was refused and costs were ordered against the applicants.
(1) Dolos Polydorou (2) Soteres Polydorou (in the capacity of personal representatives of Antonios Polydorou, deceased) v Management Nominees (Reversions) Limited [2010] UKUT 236 (LC) 23 July 2010 This appeal concerned valuation for leasehold enfranchisement of 7 Brechin Place used as a student hostel/bed-sits, with issues as to planning status, appropriate comparables, deferment rate and the timing of two £50,000 deductions. The Tribunal held the upper parts were a residential hostel (not an ordinary C3 flat use), accepted the lessees' HMO/hostel comparables and evidence of hope value, increased the deferment risk premium to reach a 5.5% deferment rate, and treated both £50,000 deductions as items to be deducted from the freehold value before deferment. The enfranchisement price was fixed at £606,861; the lessees' appeal was allowed and the freeholder's dismissed.
Valerie Edna Wood v The Coal Authority [2010] UKUT 193 (LC) 5 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether damage to 48 Stocksfield Avenue was caused by coal‑mining subsidence. The Tribunal held that section 40(2) of the 1991 Act was engaged so the onus shifted to the Coal Authority, and on the balance of probabilities preferred the Authority’s expert evidence that the damage resulted from collapse settlement of made ground triggered by leaking drains, not from mining subsidence. The claimant’s claim was dismissed and the Coal Authority awarded costs.
William George Potter Irmgard Erica Potter v London Borough of Hillingdon [2010] UKUT 212 (LC) 28 June 2010 This was a compulsory purchase reference for 4.38 ha at Harmondsworth where the claimants sought £6–12m based on an earlier option/ransom and potential airport-related development. The Tribunal rejected the claimants' unsupported higher figures, accepted expert evidence that existing-use value plus modest discounted "hope value" produced a compensation figure of £1,000,000, and made a split costs order.
Sillvote Limited v Liverpool City Council [2010] UKUT 192 (LC) 14 June 2010 This appeal concerned the enfranchisement valuation of 55 Rodney Street where the Upper Tribunal found the First-tier Tribunal (LVT) had wrongly dismissed allowances for disrepair and for tenant-funded improvements and had erred in applying a speculative 10% "risk" deduction. The UT allowed part of the appeal, accepted some of the tenant's adjustments (including allowances of £100,000 for repairs and £73,000 for tenant improvements), rejected the arbitrary 10% reduction for assured-tenancy risk, adopted the LVT's market rental figures for the commercial element, and revised the price payable to £152,788.
Judith Elizabeth Wilson v Lesley Place (Maidstone) Ltd RTM Company Limited [2010] UKUT 139 (LC) 13 May 2010 This appeal concerned whether the appellant could set off part of a prior £45,000 payment as uncommitted reserve monies against service charges claimed by the RTM company for 2005–2007. The LVT found, and the UT agreed, that the RTM company did not hold and was not entitled to the alleged reserve sums and the appellant had not proved the payment included reserve contributions. The appeal was dismissed and the RTM company was entitled to recover the service charges as pleaded.
Frederick Masri v The Wellcome Trust Limited [2010] UKUT 138 (LC) 12 May 2010 This appeal challenged an LVT decision fixing the appellant’s 2007 service charge and its Annex 3 calculation, arguing the Annex did not give effect to substantive disallowances and that the LVT failed to deal with an asserted counterclaim/set-off. The Upper Tribunal found Annex 3 did not properly reflect disallowed sums and corrected the calculation, reducing the appellant’s liability to £575.96; it also held the appellant was precluded by a prior County Court order from pursuing the counterclaim before the LVT and declined to remit that issue.
Peverel Freeholds Limited v Jonathan Mackenzie and Others [2010] UKUT 137 (LC) 12 May 2010 This appeal concerned whether roof repair costs at Rivers House were "reasonably incurred" under s.19(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and whether the managing agent (Appellant) had any duty or right to pursue the developer Barratt for defective workmanship. The Tribunal found the roof had failed due to Barratt's defective work but erred in assuming the manager had warranties or a duty to pursue Barratt; the Appellant could recover the roof repair costs as reasonably incurred, but the earlier orders disallowing recovery of the manager's LVT and earlier LT costs for service‑charge purposes were upheld.
The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v Clive Fleury and Others [2010] UKUT 136 (LC) 12 May 2010 This appeal challenged a leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) decision that full roof-recovery works on two blocks were not "reasonably incurred" under s.19(1) LTA 1985 and that lower costs should be fixed. The Lands Tribunal held the LVT was entitled to prefer the lessees' expert evidence but made legal and evidential errors (notably reliance on historic patch costs without adequate evidence and insufficient engagement with the landlord's procurement evidence). The case was remitted to the LVT for re-hearing on whether recovery was a reasonable decision and whether the overall costs were reasonable; no costs order was made.
Michael Dell (Valuation Officer) v (1) Shiraz Daya (RA/61/2008) (2) P Singh Bhagat (RA/62/2008) [2010] UKUT 132 (LC) 7 May 2010 This appeal concerned two Valuation Tribunal decisions granting 50% temporary reductions to the rateable values of shops on Westbourne Grove during Thames Water roadworks from 8 January to 22 August 2008. The Upper Tribunal allowed the Valuation Officer's appeals, treating a series of negotiated local settlements as persuasive evidence and reducing No.10 by 23% and No.31 by 20% for the period in question. The Queensway VT decision relied on by the VO was given little or no weight. No costs were awarded.
Cam Van Ly v Liverpool City Council [2010] UKUT 120 (LC) 29 April 2010 This case concerned the valuation for compensation of the claimant's mainly leasehold interest in 8/8a Nelson Street, Liverpool, as at 2 August 2007. The tribunal rejected a March 2008 sale as an unreliable comparable, accepted a full rental value of £27,600 pa and a capitalisation yield of 9.5%, deducted agreed refurbishment costs of about £190,000 and fixed the open market value of the leasehold interest at £55,000. No costs were awarded.
Guy Griffiths v Salford City Council [2010] UKUT 122 (LC) 29 April 2010 This case concerned valuation for compulsory purchase of 11 Leicester Road, Salford, as at 31 July 2009, with competing valuations and evidence about a possible local Orthodox Jewish premium and recent market decline. The tribunal preferred contemporaneous 2008–2009 local sales over an older higher 2006 sale, discounted Dr Wise's untested material on community premium, adjusted for property specifics, and awarded compensation of £96,000. No costs order was made under the simplified procedure.
Mrs Lou Barlow v Highways Agency [2010] UKUT 121 (LC) 29 April 2010 This appeal concerned disturbance compensation after part of Huntingfields House was compulsorily acquired for the A120 scheme and whether the Tribunal could order transfer of a new accessway freehold. The Tribunal held it had no power to compel transfer and awarded monetary disturbance of £43,389.80 to Mrs Barlow, disallowing several claimed items for lack of evidence. Costs were split: the acquiring authority pays claimant's costs up to 3 February 2010 and recovers its costs from that date to the end of the hearing.
j Miles Limited v Joanne Moore (Valuation Officer) [2010] UKUT 106 (LC) 27 April 2010 J Miles Ltd appealed a Valuation Tribunal decision upholding a 2005 rating assessment (RV £8,900) for a detached single‑storey warehouse, arguing necessary repair costs made the property unrateable. The UT found the Valuation Officer’s evidence that repairs cost about £9,000 (including VAT and fees) more persuasive than the appellant’s larger estimate, and that a reasonable landlord would regard those repairs as economic for obtaining an annual rent for a three‑year or longer lease. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.
Scotia Plastic Binding Limited (in administration) v London Development Agency [2010] UKUT 98 (LC) 12 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether Scotia Plastic Binding unreasonably failed to mitigate its losses after selling its lease to the LDA by relocating to premises at Crayford in June 2006. The Tribunal found it was reasonably foreseeable that moving to Crayford would impair Scotia’s ability to serve City/West End customers, that suitable alternative premises were available and that Scotia unreasonably failed to mitigate by moving to Crayford when it did. The preliminary issue was decided for the respondent and Scotia was ordered to pay the LDA’s costs.
Terence Charles George Welford v Transport for London [2010] UKUT 99 (LC) 9 April 2010 This case concerns Mr Welford's compensation claim after Transport for London compulsorily acquired a small forecourt and part of a road at World Wide House, with valuation date 27 Feb 2001. The Tribunal rejected most heads of claim (pre-possession rent concession, post-possession letting void, injurious affection to World Wide House, and neighbouring unit loss) and awarded modest sums for the claimant's personal time (£2,500), pre-reference costs (£5,391.50) and a nominal land value (£750), totalling £8,641.50, with a costs direction in favour of the claimant up to 11 Dec 2008.
David Jean Michel Maurice Coudrier and others v The Secretary of State for Transport [2010] UKUT 92 (LC) 1 April 2010 This case concerns 28 references arising from the Secretary of State's compulsory acquisition of subsoil interests for CTRL Section 2. The Tribunal determined 21 references awarding nominal market value of £50 each plus £500 legal/surveying fees and statutory interest from 1 September 2002, adjourned three Manbey Grove references for further preparation, stayed two other references for 28 days, and gave directions on two British Waterways references. No compensation was awarded for injurious affection, severance or disturbance in the determined matters.
(1) Graham Michael Scott (2) Abigail Ahern and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport [2010] UKUT 93 (LC) 30 March 2010 This case concerns seven references arising from compulsory acquisition of six subsoil interests (and one surface plot) for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Section 2). The Tribunal held that for five determined references the open market value of each deep subsoil interest was nominally £50, with no compensation for injurious affection, severance or disturbance, but awarded £500 legal/survey fees per claim and statutory interest from 1 September 2002; two remaining references were stayed until 21 April 2010. No order as to costs was made.
(1) Warwickshire Hamlets Limited (2) B Woodward (Harborne) Limited v Olive Gedden and Others [2010] UKUT 75 (LC) 26 March 2010 This appeal concerned whether a management company could recover from lessees, via their single annual "Charge" for Maintenance Expenses, a market rent it paid under a common-parts lease to the freeholder. The Lands Tribunal upheld the LVT: it had jurisdiction under s.27A/ s.18 because the aggregated Charge fell within the statutory definition of a service charge, but on proper construction of the leases the common‑parts rent was not recoverable as a Maintenance Expense. The Tribunal also held that limitation did not bar the lessees' claims because the statutory trust/conversion rule applied.
Grosvenor Estate Belgravia v Craig Wayne Klaasmeyer Ashley Dierker Klaasmeyer [2010] UKUT 69 (LC) 26 March 2010 This appeal concerned the valuation methodology for the enfranchisement price of 8 Chester Street where an unusual head-lease escalator entitled the freeholder to rising shares of premiums/income from 2026. The Tribunal held that separate "core" statutory valuations must be made for the freehold and the head leasehold excluding marriage/hope value, that transaction routes which depend on coalescence with the enfranchising tenant must be treated as marriage/hope value, and that certain non-coalescing avoidance routes may be included in core value but with risk discounts and adjusted capitalisation/deferment rates. The appeal was allowed and the enfranchisement price fixed at £1,292,245 (apportioned £1,290,291 to the head leaseholder and £1,954 to the freeholder).
Shirley Ann Johnson v Barry Timothy Leahy (Valuation Officer) [2010] UKUT 87 (LC) 26 March 2010 This is an appeal by Mrs Shirley Ann Johnson against the 2005 rating assessment of a ground-floor shop at 7 The Broadway, Southgate (RV £13,000). The tribunal considered passing rents, comparable rents across the horseshoe parade and differences in frontage/use, rejected some respondent comparables and found a lower Zone A rate of £215/m2 appropriate. The appeal was allowed and the assessment was reduced to RV £11,750 with effect from 1 April 2005.
(1) Linda Frances Chadwick (2) Malcolm Clive Hobart (as Executors of the Will of Raymond Francis Hewitt Hobart, deceased) v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKUT 82 (LC) 25 March 2010 This appeal concerned the market value of The Smokery House as at 21 December 2005, with HMRC valuing the freehold at £275,000 and the executors contending £250,000. The Tribunal inspected the property, treated the 2002 private sale as a special‑purpose transaction not reflecting open‑market value, discounted untested written estate‑agent valuations, adjusted comparables (including for floor area and appearance) and fixed the market value at £250,000, allowing the appeal and ordering no costs.
Jeremy Ryton Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax v Lawn Court Freehold Limited [2010] UKUT 81 (LC) 24 March 2010 This appeal concerned recovery of the freeholder's legal and valuation costs under s.33 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in relation to two collective enfranchisement initial notices and a claim for costs under paragraph 10, Schedule 12 of the 2002 Act. The Tribunal re-examined which items were "in pursuance of the notice" and "incidental" to s.33(1) and found many service‑charge related costs were not recoverable; it increased the award for the second notice to £4,375 (exclusive of VAT), upheld the first‑notice award, and made a limited £500 Schedule 12 award for unreasonable conduct. The appeal was allowed in part and the appellant was awarded a total of £6,568 (exclusive of VAT).
Selfridges Limited v Steven Williams Humphries (Valuation Officer) [2009] UKUT 296 (LC) 12 March 2010 This appeal concerned costs after Selfridges accepted the Valuation Officer's sealed Calderbank offer to settle the substantive rateable value at £14,000,000. The Tribunal held the reasonable date for acceptance of the 8 October 2009 offer was 20 October 2009 and apportioned costs accordingly: the respondent pays the appellant's costs up to and including 20 October 2009, and the appellant pays the respondent's costs from and including 21 October 2009; unresolved items to be assessed on the standard basis. The parties agreed the substantive rateable value from 1 April 2004.
Baystone Investments Limited v Mr S Perkins and Others [2010] UKUT 70 (LC) 10 March 2010 This appeal concerned an LVT determination varying long leases to permit recovery of common-part maintenance costs and ordering the landlord to pay the tenants' reasonable costs of the deed of variation. The Upper Tribunal accepted for present purposes that s.38(1) gives the tribunal power to specify a variation requiring one party to pay variation costs, but found the LVT's reasoning inconsistent with its other findings (declining compensation and hearing costs). The appeal was allowed in part: the leases may be varied to allow recovery of common-part maintenance costs, but the provision requiring the landlord to pay the tenants' variation costs was removed and each party must bear its own costs of the variation.
Vertical Properties Limited v (1) New Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust Limited & Others [2010] UKUT 51 (LC) 1 March 2010 Vertical Properties sought modification of restrictive covenants affecting 24 Ingram Avenue to allow demolition of a 1936 house and redevelopment as two houses (Scheme B). The Lands Tribunal held the proposed redevelopment was a reasonable private user, that the Trust and objectors would not lose any practical benefit of substantial value if the covenants were modified, and that money would be adequate compensation. The Tribunal therefore granted modification only to permit Scheme B and made limited costs directions.
Willowtech Limited v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2010] UKUT 44 (LC) 25 February 2010 This case concerns compensation for compulsory acquisition of a small multi‑unit industrial estate (Units 1–10) owned by Willowtech, with dispute whether to capitalise the passing rent or the estimated market rent and what capitalisation yield to apply. The Tribunal rejected lettings to a connected party as unreliable, determined estimated full rental value at £27,600 pa, adopted a net yield of 10.75%, and awarded open market value of the freehold at £296,500 (total compensation £298,450) plus costs to the claimant. Limited additional awards were made for loss of rent on Unit 7 (£1,200) and management time (£750); the claim for inability to invest advance payments was rejected.
Miss Alison Craighead and Others v (1) Homes for Islington Limited (2) The London Borough of Islington [2010] UKUT 47 (LC) 24 February 2010 Leaseholders appealed an LVT decision requiring them to pay major‑works service charges for works at Spa Green Estate. The UT held (1) the source of funding (ALMO supported borrowing) was irrelevant to whether the landlord had lawfully incurred costs recoverable as service charges; (2) challenges to the council’s blanket non‑exercise of Discretionary Reduction Directions raise public‑law issues for judicial review, not for determination by the LVT on the evidence before it; and (3) replacement of single‑glazed Crittall windows was factually an improvement but, on the evidence, fell within repair/renewal and was recoverable. Appeal dismissed.
Karol Bogdan Jedynak v Stratford-on-Avon District Council [2010] UKUT 46 (LC) 19 February 2010 This case concerns compensation for compulsory acquisition of the Island Café freehold and whether the claimant was entitled to a basic loss payment. The Tribunal found open market value at the valuation date to be £550,000 (with statutory interest from 12 September 2007) based on the acquiring authority’s marketing and subsequent sale. The claimant was excluded from the basic loss payment because a section 215 notice had been served and he failed to comply (and was prosecuted). The claimant must bear his own costs and pay the council’s costs from 14 July 2008.
Denny Bros Supplies Ltd v Mandy Franklin (Valuation Officer) [2010] UKUT 31 (LC) 9 February 2010 Denny Bros Supplies Ltd appealed the Valuation Tribunal's confirmation of a 2005 list assessment, arguing that disruption from nearby Arc shopping-centre redevelopment and associated street works warranted a reduction in rateable value. The Lands Tribunal found significant disturbance and allowed a uniform 25% reduction to the RV from 1 June 2007 to 31 March 2009, reducing the RV to £42,750; no costs were awarded.
T.E.B. Travel Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2010] UKUT 30 (LC) 9 February 2010 This appeal fixed compensation for T.E.B. Travel Ltd for compulsory acquisition of its St Pancras forecourt premises, with most heads agreed and three disputed items determined. The tribunal awarded £66,417 for temporary loss of retail travel agency profits, £nil for temporary loss of foreign exchange profits, and £8,328 for directors' and staff time, bringing disputed awards to £74,745 and total interim compensation to £384,680. The decision is interim pending parties' response about further evidence on 2009 foreign‑exchange profits.
Thomas Newell Limited v Lancaster City Council [2010] UKUT 2 (LC) 8 February 2010 This case decided preliminary planning questions in a compulsory purchase compensation reference for St George's Works, Lancaster. The Tribunal held that a local plan Housing Opportunity Site policy is an "area allocated primarily for a use" under s.16(2) LCA 1961 (not s.16(1)), that the correct approach is the statutory cancellation/no‑scheme assumption applied at the valuation date, and that planning permission for the claimant's wholly residential proposal should not be assumed at that date. It found a 40% prospect that permission would be granted within five years under s.14(3) subject to specified conditions and S106 obligations, and that reserved matters approval under the 2002 outline permission would not reasonably have been expected.
L & B Holdings Limited (1) L & B Haulage & Civil Engineering Contractors Limited (2) v London Borough of Brent [2010] UKUT 24 (LC) 3 February 2010 This appeal concerned when claimants were entitled to recover costs after the acquiring authority made a sealed offer in a compulsory purchase reference for land at Hannah Close. The claimants accepted the £450,000 sealed offer on 18 January 2010 only after receiving a draft undertaking; the Tribunal held it was reasonable to wait and ordered the authority to pay costs on the standard basis up to 18 January 2010 (plus the costs of the costs hearing). Compensation was agreed by consent at £450,000 plus statutory interest.
Lina Mihovilovic and Stojanea Mihovilovic v Leicester City Council [2010] UKUT 22 (LC) 28 January 2010 The tenants appealed parts of an LVT decision about service charges for 2005/06–2006/07, challenging the landlord's inclusion of amounts said to represent "self‑insurance" and procedural findings about disaggregation of door/window works and the relevant date for consultation. The UT held the council could not recover costs of bearing its own insurance risk from these tenants under the leases, and found the LVT had committed procedural error in deciding disaggregation and the contract/date issues without warning the parties. The appeal was allowed, the matter remitted to the LVT for reconsideration of disaggregation/dispensation depending on the correct contract/date, and the council was ordered not to include its Tribunal costs in service charges.
Keith Wall Graham v The Council of the City of Newcastle Upon Tyne [2009] UKUT 281 (LC) 20 January 2010 This appeal concerned compensation for a compulsory acquisition of a long lease of a cleared site in Byker and whether value attributable to a foodstore development should be assessed taking account of a wider regeneration scheme. The Tribunal held Case 2 did not apply, found that a wider regeneration joint-venture scheme underlay the acquisition and, applying the statutory disregards, disregarded that scheme and awarded the claimant £79,200 (or £270,600 if the Tribunal were wrong about disregarding the scheme). Costs directions were given.
The Earl Cadogan v (1) Farrokh Faizapour (2) John Stephenson [2010] UKUT 3 (LC) 14 January 2010 This is an appeal by the freeholder (Earl Cadogan) against an LVT determination of the price for collective enfranchisement of 54–56 Cadogan Square and 26–28 Clabon Mews, valuation date 13 November 2006. The Tribunal re‑assessed expert evidence on comparable sales and adjustments (lateral layout, floor level, off‑square, condition and planning/demand risk), rejected the LVT figure as too low and substituted a new total price of £17,055,919. Key findings included a 10% allowance for lateral layout, no deduction for future planning/demand risk, and the ordering of non‑physical percentage adjustments before physical condition (spot psf) allowances.
Satwinder Kaur Bhatia & Others v The Secretary of State for Transport [2010] UKUT 291 (LC) 4 January 2010 This appeal concerned 28 references about compulsory acquisition of subsoil "tube" interests for Section 2 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. The Tribunal found the open‑market value of each subsoil interest to be a nominal £50 and awarded no compensation for injurious affection, severance or disturbance, on the basis that no reliable evidence of diminution or damage was shown and there was effectively no market for the interest except to the acquiring authority. The Tribunal also held the acquiring authority's enquiries were sufficient in respect of non‑responding claimants.
(1) Persimmon Homes (Midlands) Limited (2) St Albans Diocesan Board of Finance (3) Old Road Securities Plc v The Secretary of State for Transport [2009] UKUT 126 (LC) 22 December 2009 This Tribunal considered compensation for compulsory acquisition of 2.4515 ha at Clapham Folly for the A6 bypass, principally whether in the no‑scheme world residential planning permission would have been granted and, if not, what hope value existed. It found no sustainable highways objection and concluded condition 22 would likely have been removed, giving an 85% chance at the valuation date that permission would have been granted for the reference land (60 dwellings identified), with modest additional hope value for further land. The Tribunal also held no deduction for betterment under s.261 was payable because contiguous retained lands did not receive a direct benefit referable to the purpose of acquisition.
Thomas David Head v Eastbourne Borough Council [2009] UKUT 271 (LC) 22 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether Mr Head’s second blight notice for a flat in Eastbourne was valid and whether the council’s counter-notice was well founded. The Tribunal held the notice was substantially compliant despite minor drafting errors, the council’s Supplementary Planning Brief adopted by resolution constituted a “plan” indicating the land may be required, the council failed to show it did not propose to acquire the property as at the relevant date, and the claimant satisfied the marketing/price requirements; the blight notice was allowed and costs awarded to the claimant.
Forty-Five Holdings Limited v Grosvenor (Mayfair) Estate [2009] UKUT 234 (LC) 16 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether roof-space development value (£472,500) should be included in marriage value when a tenant-nominee purchases the freehold under collective enfranchisement. The tribunal held that paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 requires treating the participating tenants as having the potential ability to obtain new leases for valuation purposes and that any resulting development uplift is included in marriage value. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the LVT's valuation of £567,550.
Julian Shersby v Grenehurst Park [2009] UKUT 241 (LC) 16 December 2009 This appeal concerns whether the Manager at Grenehurst Park lawfully exercised a lease power (Part III, Fourth Schedule) to recalculate residents' percentage service‑charge contributions and to split charges into a mansion/house pot and a common pot, and whether the Appellant could challenge insurance premiums for 1997–2004. The Tribunal found the LVT had jurisdiction and on rehearing concluded the Manager had bona fide exercised its discretion within a range of reasonable outcomes and that the Appellant was precluded from challenging the 1997–2004 insurance sums. The Manager’s recalculation and the post‑2004 insurance charging method were therefore upheld.
James Edward Allen (Valuation Officer) v Freemans Plc [2009] UKUT 240 (LC) 7 December 2009 This appeal concerned the correct 2005 rateable value of Freemans’ large mixed‑age Peterborough warehouse and whether the 2003 surrender-and-regrant lease rent represented open market rental value for rating. The Tribunal was wrong to adopt the 2003 initial stepped rent without considering the stepped structure or the context of the surrender/re‑grant; the agreed 2003 rent carried little weight and, where relied on, should be converted to an equivalent constant rent. The Tribunal’s factorised, age‑segmented valuation approach (with specified base rates, height and first‑floor adjustments and a 5% end allowance) was preferred, and the 2005 RV was set at £1,675,000 with the respondent ordered to pay the appellant’s costs.
Michael Henry Scholes v Kirklees Council [2009] UKUT 246 (LC) 7 December 2009 This appeal concerned a Part 1 Land Compensation Act 1973 claim by Mr Scholes that a new 28m extension, turning head and two parking spaces on Fort Ann Road (opened 1 May 2000) caused diminution in value of his house. The Tribunal confined assessment to physical factors emanating from the new works and excluded effects from increased use of the pre‑existing road. The claimant failed to prove any material depreciation attributable to the new works and was awarded no compensation; no costs were ordered.
Solartrack Plc v London Development Agency [2009] UKUT 242 (LC) 30 November 2009 Solartrack claimed compensation after the London Development Agency (LDA) acquired 42–44 New Road, seeking sums for a 1983 Seco-Larm underlease, the freehold market value, and disturbance. The Tribunal found the letters purporting to assign the underlease to Solartrack were fabricated and dismissed the underlease claim; it also held it had no statutory jurisdiction to award market value for the freehold sold before the compulsory acquisition. The Tribunal held Solartrack may pursue a contractual disturbance claim (including loss of related companies) and treated the freehold reference as a consent reference under the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 s1(5) for arbitration of that contractual dispute. Costs were allocated largely against Solartrack for the leasehold reference and largely for the LDA on the freehold reference, with mixed outcomes on the disturbance preliminary issue.
Daejan Investments Limited v (1) Jack Benson (2) David Lapes (3) Paul Wallder (4) Aldenspring Limited (5) Alastair Gray [2009] UKUT 233 (LC) 27 November 2009 Daejan sought retrospective dispensation from statutory Stage 2 consultation requirements before recovering major works costs at Queens Mansions; the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal found material failures to provide proper summaries, make priced estimates available in time, and to allow effective consultation, and refused dispensation. The Lands Tribunal upheld that refusal, concluding that the breach was serious and that prejudice to lessees was realistically possible given the closeness of tenders, so dispensation should not be granted and the lessees' recoverable liability was limited by the statutory consequence.
Pritam Singh & Kuldeep Kaur Singh v London Development Agency [2009] UKUT 237 (LC) 20 November 2009 This case concerned the valuation for compensation of a 3.76 acre former bus garage and yard vested in the LDA on 5 April 2007. The Tribunal determined open market rental values (buildings £6.00 psf; yard £2.20 psf), fixed the capitalisation rate at 6.8%, and awarded Rule 2 compensation of £6,333,500, with total compensation including agreed payments and pre‑reference costs of £6,489,727.20. The claimants were awarded pre‑reference costs of £14,168.87 and their reasonable costs of the reference.
(1) Mr D Zuckerman & Others v Trustees of the Calthorpe Estates [2009] UKUT 235 (LC) 18 November 2009 This appeal concerned the correct deferment rate to value eleven residential lease extensions at Kelton Court. The Tribunal increased the Sportelli starting point of 5% to a 6% deferment rate, finding evidence of slower expected long-term real growth, greater deterioration risk and slightly higher management risk justified raising the risk premium and the flats management allowance. The premiums were reduced accordingly (flat 33 £8,150; each other flat £8,100) and the appeal was allowed.
Sarum Properties Ltd v (1) Colin Steward Webb (2) Natasha Louise Webb (3) Katrina Joanne Webb [2009] UKUT 188 (LC) 21 October 2009 This appeal concerned the correct valuation of an extended lease and the premium payable for 20c Mountview Road following enfranchisement. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal only on the extended-lease valuation, reheard that issue, fixed the extended lease value at £372,500 and the premium at £18,475, and dismissed the appellant’s other grounds (including challenges to the LVT’s valuation of the existing lease and the 7% capitalisation rate). No order as to costs was made.
Circle Thirty Three Housing Trust Limited v Michelle Segovia [2009] UKUT 203 (LC) 15 October 2009 This appeal concerned whether a landlord could increase a separately stated heating and hot water (H&HW) charge and recover a shortfall in service/H&HW charges that arose before the tenant's tenancy. The Tribunal held the H&HW charge formed part of the service charge and could be increased under the tenancy's variation clause, but the tenancy did not permit recovery from the current tenant of deficits attributable to a prior tenant. The case was remitted to the LVT to determine the reasonableness of the 2006/07 and 2007/08 increases.
Brian Webster (Valuation Officer) v Yorkshire Water Services Limited [2009] UKUT 199 (LC) 5 October 2009 This appeal concerned whether screening and de-gritting at Scalby Mills mark the start of sewage treatment, making the c.2.1 km pipeline to Burniston Road not a "sewer" for Schedule 5 exemption purposes. The Tribunal found treatment begins at Scalby Mills, so the pipeline is not a sewer, allowed the Valuation Officer's appeal and reinstated the higher rateable value of £727,500 from 1 April 2002, with a split costs order.
Paul Stuart Allen (Valuation Officer) v English Sports Council/Sports Council Trust Company [2009] UKUT 187 (LC) 25 September 2009 This appeal concerned the contractor's-basis valuation of the National Sports Centre at Bisham Abbey after major grant-funded redevelopment, focusing on whether (1) a stage 5 deduction should reflect Lottery grant funding and (2) a deduction should be made for flood risk. The Tribunal held that no stage 5 deduction for grant was appropriate because effects of grant are generally subsumed in the prescribed decapitalisation rate and earlier valuation stages, but allowed a modest £1,750 stage 5 deduction for flood risk, producing a rateable value of £478,250. The Valuation Officer’s appeal largely succeeded and the ratepayer’s appeal was dismissed; costs were borne by the parties.
Dependable Homes Limited v (1) David John William Mann (2) Margaret Ann Mann [2009] UKUT 171 (LC) 8 September 2009 Dependable Homes Ltd appealed an LVT decision fixing the premium for a new lease of Flat 21, Sunningdale Court. The Lands Tribunal reheard valuation evidence and fixed the unimproved long leasehold value at £158,000, adopted a relativity of 83%, and allowed the appeal, fixing the premium at £19,000. The Tribunal preferred a vetted "graph of graphs" relativity over local LVT percentage figures and adjusted comparables where necessary. It also held the LVT was wrong to determine a price outside the range contended before it.
Weybridge Management Limited v Spelthorne Borough Council [2009] UKUT 135 (LC) 16 July 2009 This case concerned valuation under the Land Compensation Act after Spelthorne Borough Council compulsorily acquired 3.65 acres of Green Belt land (Orchard Meadow). The Tribunal held that the 1998 auction sale was an admissible and appropriate starting point, found there was some speculative "hope value" for development, and fixed open market value at £100,000 (including hope value), awarded limited recoverable surveyor fees and £2,000 for the claimant's director time. Costs of the reference were awarded to the claimant.
Samuel Andrew Taff v Highway Agency [2009] UKUT 128 (LC) 10 July 2009 This appeal concerned whether the claimant’s use of land at the valuation date (26 Feb 2001) was lawful for the purposes of s.5(4) Land Compensation Act 1961 and therefore relevant to compensation. The Tribunal held that certificates of lawful use and planning permission establishing scrap yard/metal recycling/waste transfer uses must be taken into account in assessing market value, but any element of disturbance compensation dependent on business activities requiring a waste management licence (which the claimant lacked at the valuation date) is excluded by s.5(4). Directions were given for further factual evidence and revised valuations; the acquiring authority was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the preliminary issue.
Ridgeland Properties Limited v Bristol City Council [2009] UKUT 102 (LC) 3 June 2009 This case concerned valuation for compensation after compulsory acquisition of Tollgate House, Bristol, focussing on which redevelopment scheme a hypothetical prudent purchaser would pursue and the appropriate planning and development cost inputs for a residual valuation. The Tribunal rejected the claimant's proposed taller scheme, found the claimant's baseline scheme viable but the council's alternative ("Bristol" scheme) produced the highest residual land value, and awarded compensation of £4,500,000 while reducing the claimant's recoverable costs by 20%.
Leda Properties Ltd v David Kelvin Howells (Valuation Officer) 27 March 2009 Leda Properties appealed a proposal seeking deletion of a hereditament described as a purpose-built computer centre, arguing it was incapable of beneficial use on the material day (29 Sept 2000) or alternatively should be assessed as a store. The Tribunal held the proposal form sought deletion only (not a change of description or reduced RV), applied the statutory assumptions including antecedent valuation date for demand (1 Apr 1998) and disregarded non-rateable plant. The appellant failed to prove the hereditament was incapable of use as a computer centre, and the appeal was dismissed.
Earl Cadogan v Dorritt Moussaieff 15 September 2005 This consolidated appeal concerned the appropriate capital valuations and deferment rates for several central London enfranchisement and lease-extension claims, notably 40 Chelsea Square. The Tribunal upheld the LVT's freehold vacant possession value for 40 Chelsea Square at £11.5m but revised the general deferment rate for Cadogan Estate houses to 4.5% (with 32 Rosary Gardens at 6.4%), producing specified purchase prices and premiums. The appellant Mr Arbib's challenge to value failed and he was ordered to pay Earl Cadogan's costs for that appeal.
Lionel Rigby v Michael John Wheatley 30 June 2005 This appeal by tenant Lionel Rigby challenged insurance service-charge demands for 2000–04 under a 1975 lease requiring a "fair proportion (to be determined by the Lessor's Surveyor for the time being)". The Lands Tribunal held that the lease makes a surveyor's determination a condition precedent to a tenant's obligation to pay and that the landlord had not obtained such determinations for the demands in issue, so those demands were not payable. The LVT's insurance findings were set aside and the tenant awarded limited costs and reimbursement of tribunal fees.
World Class Gifts Limited v Transport for London 5 August 2003 This case concerns a procedural sanction under the Lands Tribunal Rules where World Class Gifts Limited failed to comply with a peremptory order of 22 April 2003 requiring full witness statements and supplementary expert reports. The Tribunal found the claimants’ disclosure and expert material inadequate and late, rejected their explanations (including advisers’ failings), and concluded they had not pursued the reference with due diligence. As a consequence the Tribunal debarred the claimants from adducing evidence or making submissions on heads of claim other than loss of goodwill and ordered costs against them.
Ryde International Plc v London Regional Transport 12 February 2000 This case concerned the compulsory acquisition valuation of a block of sheltered housing (37 flats and 5 bungalows) with possession taken 8 August 1997. The Tribunal fixed the interim open market value under rule 2 at £2,060,000 (with statutory interest) and, applying a diminishing-balance interest method and agreed management/repair deductions, found no compensatable holding costs under rule 6 for the period from 25 March 1993 to 8 August 1997. The Tribunal preferred the acquiring authority’s conventional residual valuation method for rule 2 but left open the claimant’s contention that loss of development profit might be recoverable as disturbance under rule 6 and invited further submissions on that point.
David John Evans v Worcestershire County Council 20 December 1999 This case determines compensation for compulsory acquisition of a mixed-use motor-trade site (Temeside Garage) and resolves disputes about lawful parking/car-display capacity, rents, and heads of loss. The Tribunal held a long-unenforced planning condition (traffic circulation) could not be relied on at the valuation date and assessed a realistic lawful layout of 32 display/customer/employee spaces. It awarded a total of £184,323 (including disturbance), dismissed the claimant's loss of rent claim, and ordered the claimant to pay the council's costs of the reference from 23 June 1999.

No cases matched your search.