Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited v Miss Stephanie Sherwin
Decision date: 10 December 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 412 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether 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.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Section 20B does not limit liability for advance payments made on account of prospective service costs; when applied to a balancing charge the correct test is whether particular costs (or costs held reasonable under s.19(1)) were incurred more than 18 months before the demand, in which case they are irrecoverable — costs incurred within 18 months remain recoverable.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal observed that an LVT lacks a general power to review or reconsider its own decisions in the way the LVT attempted here, and criticised the LVT’s rejection of clear High Court authority and its imposition of disproportionate documentary requirements in a permission-to-appeal process; these procedural remarks are persuasive but not framed as binding ratio.