Landlord and tenant – Service charge – Insurance costs – Applicant holding long lease of flat – Respondent landlord obliged to insure property and provide applicant with copy of insurance policy and receipt for last premium on request – Whether applicant liable to pay sums demanded for insurance costs where those documents not produced – Whether tribunal having power to instruct respondent to provide required documentation in future – Application allowed in part
The applicant was the long leaseholder of a two-bedroom flat on the first floor of a Victorian terraced property in London WC1E. The respondent owned the freehold of the property as well as a leasehold interest in the other flat in the property, located on the ground floor. The lease required the landlord to insure the property and, “whenever reasonably required to do so”, to produce to the tenant a copy of any relevant insurance policy and a receipt for the last premium.
The applicant applied, under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, for a determination of the amount of service charge, which she was liable to pay to the respondent for the years 2015 and 2016. She disputed certain sums demanded in respect of insurance, namely £175.28 for a spanning late August to late December 2015 and £158.01 for a further period from January to late April 2016.
She also complained that, despite numerous requests, the respondent had failed to provide proof of insurance, which was a summary offence; she asked the tribunal to determine whether the respondent was liable to pay a fine and also to instruct the respondent to provide proof of insurance cover for the current year and to do so in a timely fashion in future years.
The respondent failed to comply with a direction of the tribunal to disclose all relevant documents including insurance policies, although the respondent’s brother did provide the applicant with a copy of the insurance policy for the current year to late April 2017.
Held: The application was allowed in part.
(1) The tribunal only had jurisdiction under section 27A of the 19895 Act to determine whether the insurance sums claimed were reasonable and payable. It had no jurisdiction to determine whether any fine was due or to enforce the terms of the lease.
(2) The tribunal did however record that the applicant was entitled, under both the terms of her lease and the 1985 Act, to be provided with a copy of the relevant insurance policy and details of the premiums payable. She had an interest in ensuring that the property was properly covered and her building society required proof of cover.
(3) In the absence of any evidence that the property was insured during the period from late August 2015 to late April 2016, the sum charged for insurance during that period was not payable.
The application was determined on the written representations of the parties.
Sally Dobson, barrister