MARK SKELTON AND OTHERS v MARK SKELTON AND OTHERS v DBS HOMES (KINGS HILL) LIMITED
Decision date: 6 July 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 379 (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 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.
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 a lease condition requires service of an Estimate before interim on-account demands take effect, a demand based on a prepared Estimate but not accompanied by that Estimate is ineffective until the tenant actually receives the Estimate; and such on-account demands relate to anticipated future costs so that the statutory time bar in s20B (which concerns recovery of past incurred costs) does not necessarily prevent belated validation of those demands once the Estimate is served.
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 expressed that defective or incoherent lease drafting should not be construed so as to require a landlord to provide services with no entitlement to payment absent clear contractual language, and that procedural or drafting failures can justify excluding landlord costs under s20C even where the landlord ultimately recovers service charges.