Welcome to our first blog and what we hope will mark the beginning of a regular and interesting series of posts from us. We will look to use this blog as a platform to comment on the ‘hot-topics’ of the moment in the leasehold industry and how these may affect the many people who consider themselves as stakeholders of such, as well as providing updates on what we have been doing as a business as we look to grow from these humble beginnings. More than anything however we hope that these posts will be something enjoyable to read – any feedback along the way (positive or negative) will always be gratefully received.
In terms of what we have been doing, it has now been two weeks since Leasehold Debt Recovery ‘went live’ with most of that time being spent speaking with prospective clients and basically putting the word out about the business and what we can do – in other words, not very interesting in terms of content for a blog! Nevertheless, there have been several things which have caught our eye over the past few weeks and in this first blog we will briefly recap some of these:
Housing White Paper – When Gavin Barwell MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, spoke at the LEASE conference last month it sounded like the Housing White Paper would be very significant for the leasehold sector, however when it was published less than a week later it turned out that there was actually very little too it – just 3 paragraphs on leasehold – with leasehold houses and fast-increasing ground rents being the main issues mentioned. There was a vague promise to consider further reforms through consultation, although in what areas these reforms will be is unclear. Statutory regulation of managing agents perhaps? Or changing the s.20 consultation threshold for qualifying works to account for the size of the relevant development? Maybe even a fresh look at Commonhold? Time will tell it seems, although certainly there are plenty of people out there who believe that the current leasehold system doesn’t work as well as it should and that the Housing White Paper was perhaps a missed opportunity for positive change.
LB Hounslow v Waaler – This was a case in which the Court of Appeal upheld the previous decision of the Upper Tribunal that Hounslow were not permitted to recover the full cost of works which it had carried out within an estate, these works having been improvements rather than repairs. The lease in this instance did make provision for recovering the costs of improvements so there was no issue at least from that perspective, however it was determined that Hounslow had nonetheless failed to have sufficient regard for three factors which it was said should be taken into account when considering the reasonableness of improvements: 1) the extent of the interests of the lessees, 2) the views of the lessees & 3) the financial impact of the works on the lessees. It is unclear whether Hounslow will now seek to appeal this case to the Supreme Court, although regardless this case is helpful in providing guidance to landlords and managing agents of factors which ought to be considered when undertaking improvement works in order to avoid any subsequent issues with recovering the cost of the works.
Elim Court RTM Company Ltd v Avon Freeholds Ltd – This was an interesting (and perhaps controversial) case in which the Court of Appeal considered, amongst other things, whether a failure to make an RTM Co’s Articles of Association available to inspect on a Saturday or a Sunday (s.78 (5)(b), CLRA 2002) was fatal to a claim for the right to manage; the Upper Tribunal had previously held in favour of the landlord that such a failure was indeed fatal. The Court of Appeal however, with LJ Lewison giving the leading Judgment, disagreed and held that whilst this was indeed a failure it should not be considered fatal. This view, and with which both other Judges agreed, was reached following consideration having been given to a previous Court of Appeal case (non–Right to Manage) and which LJ Lewison considered to be binding in this matter, concluding from such that ‘trivial’ failures to comply with right to manage legislation need not necessarily invalidate a claim. The appeal (and following other matters also having been determined in the RTM Co’s favour) was therefore allowed although it will be interesting to see whether Avon will now seek to appeal this case to the Supreme Court, particularly given the apparent inconsistency between the decision and the legislation and also the point that the case cited by LJ Lewison as being binding should only be advisory on the higher court.
That’s everything for this first blog, hopefully you have enjoyed reading it & please keep a look out for the next instalment.
NW
Recent Comments