Landlord and tenant – Service charge – Landlord and Tenant Acts 1985 and 1987 – Respondent landlord issuing service charge demands on appellant lessees for three accounting years – Demands not complying with requirements of section 47(1) of 1987 Act by reason of failure to give name of landlord – Fresh demands served and found to comply with section 47 – Whether respondent precluded from recovering certain sums under section 20B of 1985 Act on ground that demand not served with 18 months of relevant costs being incurred – Whether original demands sufficing for purposes of section 20B – Whether deficiencies corrected by fresh demands – Appeal dismissed
The appellants were the lessees of a number of holiday chalets on an estate owned by the respondent. The respondent applied to the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT), under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, for a determination that service charges demands that it had served on the appellants between October 2008 and July 2010, for three accounting years spanning 2007 to 2010, were reasonable within the meaning of section 19. On that application, the LVT reduced certain items in amount and found the remainder to be reasonable. However, it found that the service charge demands issued by the respondent had not complied with the requirements of section 47(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, since they had not given the name of the landlord but only that of its management company, with the result that the charges were not payable until the respondent notified the appellants of the relevant information pursuant to section 47(2).
In June 2011, the respondent served fresh service charge demands on the appellants in respect of the three years in question; on a further application, the LVT held that those demands complied with section 47 of the 1987 Act.
The appellants appealed. They contended that certain of the amounts that the LVT had found to be reasonable were not payable, by virtue of section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, because a valid service charge demand had not been made in respect of them within 18 months of the relevant costs being incurred. They contended that the original service charge demands did not qualify for the purposes of section 20B since a demand that did not comply with section 47 of the 1987 Act was not a valid demand.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The original service charge demands served by the respondent between 2008 and 2010 were demands for the purposes of section 20B of the 1985 Act. They required the payment of sums due to the landlord under the terms of the leases and were not precluded from being demands because they were sent by the landlord’s management company. They were demands, albeit deficient ones. Any invalidity of a demand by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of section 47(1) of the 1987 Act could be corrected retrospectively by the service of notice under section 47(2); that position was in contrast to cases of contractual invalidity, which were not capable of retrospective correction: Brent London Borough Council v Shulem B Association Ltd [2011] EWHC 1663 (Ch); [2011] 4 All ER 778; [2011] 27 EG 77 (CS) distinguished. The deficiencies in the respondent’s original notices had been corrected by notice within the meaning of section 47(2). There was no reason why the notice contemplated by section 47(2) should not be contained within a later demand and the demands of June 2011 were sufficient for that purpose.
Charles Knapper (of Fursdon Knapper Solicitors, of Plymouth) appeared for the appellants; Sebastian Kokelaar (instructed by direct access) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
Landlord and tenant – Service charge – Landlord and Tenant Acts 1985 and 1987 – Respondent landlord issuing service charge demands on appellant lessees for three accounting years – Demands not complying with requirements of section 47(1) of 1987 Act by reason of failure to give name of landlord – Fresh demands served and found to comply with section 47 – Whether respondent precluded from recovering certain sums under section 20B of 1985 Act on ground that demand not served with 18 months of relevant costs being incurred – Whether original demands sufficing for purposes of section 20B – Whether deficiencies corrected by fresh demands – Appeal dismissedThe appellants were the lessees of a number of holiday chalets on an estate owned by the respondent. The respondent applied to the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT), under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, for a determination that service charges demands that it had served on the appellants between October 2008 and July 2010, for three accounting years spanning 2007 to 2010, were reasonable within the meaning of section 19. On that application, the LVT reduced certain items in amount and found the remainder to be reasonable. However, it found that the service charge demands issued by the respondent had not complied with the requirements of section 47(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, since they had not given the name of the landlord but only that of its management company, with the result that the charges were not payable until the respondent notified the appellants of the relevant information pursuant to section 47(2). In June 2011, the respondent served fresh service charge demands on the appellants in respect of the three years in question; on a further application, the LVT held that those demands complied with section 47 of the 1987 Act.The appellants appealed. They contended that certain of the amounts that the LVT had found to be reasonable were not payable, by virtue of section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, because a valid service charge demand had not been made in respect of them within 18 months of the relevant costs being incurred. They contended that the original service charge demands did not qualify for the purposes of section 20B since a demand that did not comply with section 47 of the 1987 Act was not a valid demand.Held: The appeal was dismissed.The original service charge demands served by the respondent between 2008 and 2010 were demands for the purposes of section 20B of the 1985 Act. They required the payment of sums due to the landlord under the terms of the leases and were not precluded from being demands because they were sent by the landlord’s management company. They were demands, albeit deficient ones. Any invalidity of a demand by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of section 47(1) of the 1987 Act could be corrected retrospectively by the service of notice under section 47(2); that position was in contrast to cases of contractual invalidity, which were not capable of retrospective correction: Brent London Borough Council v Shulem B Association Ltd [2011] EWHC 1663 (Ch); [2011] 4 All ER 778; [2011] 27 EG 77 (CS) distinguished. The deficiencies in the respondent’s original notices had been corrected by notice within the meaning of section 47(2). There was no reason why the notice contemplated by section 47(2) should not be contained within a later demand and the demands of June 2011 were sufficient for that purpose.Charles Knapper (of Fursdon Knapper Solicitors, of Plymouth) appeared for the appellants; Sebastian Kokelaar (instructed by direct access) appeared for the respondent.Sally Dobson, barrister