Bradmoss Ltd v Lee Stubbs. Bob Stubbs. Paul Stubbs.

Decision date: 10 January 2012

Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 3 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary 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.

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: medium

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.

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

A fee charged for landlord consent to underletting can be an "administration charge" under Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and is payable only to the extent it is reasonable; section 19(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 does not itself create a freestanding right to charge but contemplates a reasonable payment for expenses connected with consent. Absent evidence of actual work and time spent, a landlord’s generic estimates do not justify a full claimed fee.

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 refusals of permission to appeal decided on limited material should not be treated as authoritative precedent. It also indicated that a landlord’s broad list of potential tasks and estimated times is insufficient without evidence of what work was actually undertaken and how long it took.

Warning

The chunk contains substantial repetition and partly duplicated passages, which made extraction of unique points somewhat noisy. notes contain some repetition and partial duplication; they may be materially noisy.