Residential service charge disputes

Both residential and commercial landlords aim for a 'clear lease': where the costs of repair, maintenance and provision of services are met by the tenants rather than being deducted from the rent received.

Where a building is in multi-occupation it is sensible for repair, maintenance and services to be controlled by the landlord, with the costs being recovered from tenants through the service charge.

In commercial leases, the tenant's obligation to pay service charge, and the landlord's ability to recover costs, are entirely contractual. In residential leases the tenant's obligation to pay depends on there being a contractual service charge clause, but the landlord's ability to appoint managing agents, carry out works and to recover costs is heavily regulated by statute. For further information on commercial service charges, see our Commercial service charge disputes—overview.

Statutory control

Sections 18–25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) cover limitations to and reasonableness of service charges, requests for a summary of relevant costs, the duty to consult, and other related issues. Any service charge demand must be accompanied by a formal summary

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property Disputes News

Tenant Fees Act 2019—check-out challenge fails (Switaj v McClenaghan)

Property Disputes analysis: the Court of Appeal addressed whether tenancy fees can amount to prohibited payments under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (TFA 2019) even though they were paid prior to the Act taking effect. The tenant sought to defend proceedings for possession by relying upon a tenancy check-out fee which had been charged with the original tenancy in 2018, arguing that the fee held-over to subsequent replacement tenancies and became a prohibited payment post-TFA 2019. The appeal relied by analogy on the position with deposits where a deposit is notionally treated as being repaid upon replacement tenancies (Superstrike v Rodrigues). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision at first instance to distinguish Superstrike. The case helps clarify the status of tenancy fees paid prior to the Act and whether these can amount to prohibited payments post-2019. Written by Kevin Long, solicitor at Hackney Community Law Centre.

Property Disputes weekly highlights—12 December 2024

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: a High Court decision granting a final injunction against protestors, Upper Tribunal decisions on whether communal electricity charges that did not account for the use of solar panels were reasonably incurred, the threshold for unreasonable behaviour capable of justifying an order for costs, and calculation of ‘internal floor area’ for the purposes of the right to manage. It also includes the 178th Practice Direction update to the Civil Procedure Rules, the Ministry of Justice’s decision to publish the names of claimants of money judgments on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines in England and Wales, and amendments to the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Chambers) Order.

How long is twelve months? Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considers principles for calculation of time periods (Moh v Rimal Properties Ltd; Kelly v Bostall Estates Ltd)

Property Disputes analysis: These appeals (heard together) concerned two applications for rent repayment orders against landlords who had each been managing a house in multiple occupation (HMO) without a licence. Both applications were dismissed as out of time, with this being upheld on appeal. In deciding the appeal, the Upper Tribunal (UT) had to decide how the expression ‘in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made’ was to be construed. In so doing, the judge considered the leading authorities on the construction of time periods, before finding these did not cover the statutory language used. It is a useful reminder to all practitioners that a time period can be shorter than it first appears. The judge also had to decide at what point in time a defence under section 72 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) is deemed to arise for the purpose of calculating the time period. Written by Joseph Bunting and Timothy Foot, barristers, Maitland Chambers, London.

Names of claimants of money judgments to be published on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines in England and Wales

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has concluded its consultation on the proposal to include the names of claimants on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines in England and Wales (the Register). The consultation sought views on amending legislation to allow the names of claimants in money judgments from the County Court and High Court to be published on the Register. After analysing the responses, the MoJ has decided to implement the proposal and plans to lay Regulations in parliament to put this into effect.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News