MRS DAPHNE MARION WALLACE-JARVIS v (1) OPTIMA (CAMBRIDGE) LIMITED Respondents (2) MR AND MRS KAMRAM KHAZAI
Decision date: 11 July 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 328 (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 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.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Where billed water consumption is manifestly excessive and the landlord (or service‑charge claimant) does not investigate or take effective steps to explain or correct the anomaly, the landlord bears the burden of showing the costs were reasonably incurred under section 19; and, where the Water Retail Order 2006 applies, a reseller can recover only the undertaker's volumetric tariff plus apportioned standing and limited administration charges.
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 noted it would have been a simple and appropriate step for the landlord to obtain manual meter readings and compare aggregated sub‑meter totals with the main meter to investigate anomalies. It also observed that procedural irregularity in not being an original LVT party does not prevent a subsequent affected lessee from appealing when demands may later be made against them.