Landlords carrying out repairs to flats were yesterday warned always to consult with tenants.
The Court of Appeal threw out a claim by Maryland Estates for the cost of improvements to property because the company failed to consult, despite the fact that the majority of the tenants were described as unco-operative, obstructive and opposed to the landlord undertaking any works at all.
Robert Walker LJ said that even though the landlord’s attitude was understandable in human terms, it nevertheless constituted a breach of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires landlords to consult before imposing service charges.
Maryland succeeded in recovering charges for repairs to flats in Ribblesdale Road, London N8, which it carried out after consultation with tenants as required by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. But it failed in its claim for additional repairs to the roof, which were not identified until after the original work had started and scaffolding was in place.
Counsel for the landlord, Kim Lewison QC, argued that the judge should exercise his discretion, waive the consultation requirements and hold that the landlord had acted reasonably.
The court was told that the landlord had not sought to liaise with the tenants regarding the additional works because the stance of the majority of the tenants was that the landlord should not undertake any works at all. The tenants intended to initiate court proceedings for leasehold enfranchisement and said they would carry out any necessary works themselves once they had acquired the freehold.
In view of what was described as the tenants unco-operative and obstructive behaviour for reasons unconnected with the reasonableness of the works themselves, Lewison maintained that Maryland was entirely justified in not consulting on additional works.
However, Robert Walker LJ said that although the attitude of the landlord had been understandable, it was not reasonable for the purposes of section 20. It was important that tenants knew what was going on and what was being done at their ultimate expense.
Martin v Maryland Estates Ltd, Court of Appeal (Robert Walker LJ and Blofeld J) 26 April 1999.
Kim Lewison QC and Martin Dray (instructed by Malthouse Chevalier) appeared for the appellant; Stanley Gallagher (instructed by Alistair Keeble & Passmore) appeared for the respondents.
PLS News 27/4/99
