How well do you remember Monday 4th January 2021? For many it was the first day back at work after the Christmas break, schools were open, and we were all in our respective tiers looking forward to a year which would hopefully be a vast improvement on the one which had just ended. However, those hopes were about to be put on hold as a little over 24 hours after reassuring the nation that “schools are safe”, the Prime Minister had a characteristic change of heart and announced that schools were to close immediately and that we would shortly enter a third national lockdown. So, aside from trying to help our children with their remote learning (no, I still don’t understand the way in which division is taught to Year 3), what have we been doing for the past month?
Late in 2020, we were instructed to deal with the recovery of service charges relating to waking watch costs & increased insurance premiums which had arisen due to the type of cladding at a prestigious city centre development. We are delighted to say that since the turn of the year we have successfully resolved the majority of these cases by obtaining payment of the outstanding service charges. As for the cases which we continue to deal with, we firmly believe that with the work we have put in to date a successful outcome is not too far away.
This month we have also received the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) in a case that we have been dealing with on behalf of a client. We were pleased to note that the Tribunal generally found the relevant service charge costs to be reasonable, however unfortunately it did not accept the method by which our client had been apportioning these costs between the three blocks within the development. We have therefore spent time this month calculating the correct apportionment and preparing the necessary documents for our client in order that revised service charge demands may then be issued.
On the subject of the Tribunal, we have also been advising a client recently on the issue of section 27A(4)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This legislation prohibits an application being made to the Tribunal in respect of a matter which “has been agreed or admitted by the tenant”. We were initially involved in this matter last year when we recovered payment of outstanding service charges for our client, with this payment being made pursuant to a signed ‘Agreement for Payment’. The issue which has now arisen and upon which we have been advising our client is whether the terms of that agreement constitute an agreement or admittance by the leaseholder that the service charges were properly due.
Finally for this month, we have also dealt with the usual array of cases in which we help clients to obtain County Court Judgments and then proceed to enforce these by service of a notice pursuant to section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925. These cases will typically be resolved with payment being recovered from the leaseholder’s mortgage lender, however we are dealing with a couple of cases at present which it seems will instead proceed as claims for possession of the relevant properties on grounds of forfeiture of the lease.
I hope you’ve enjoyed reading this update of what we have being doing so far in 2021. If we can assist you in relation to any similar matters then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Nicholas Warren MIRPM AssocRICS
Director, Leasehold Debt Recovery
Recent Comments