The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has ruled that a superior landlord intending to carry out works must give notice to each of its direct tenants of a dwelling and each of its own tenants’ sub-tenants who are liable to contribute towards the costs of the works.
In a case involving the Brunswick Centre, London WC1, Martin Roger QC, deputy president of the UT, made findings on preliminary issues in the dispute, including the proper construction of the consultation requirements.
In what she described as an important decision, Nicola Muir of Tanfield Chambers said that this marks “a significant departure from the conventional approach of consultation along the chain”.
The UT found that the proper construction of the consultation requirements is that a superior landlord intending to carry out works or enter into a qualifying long-term agreement must give notice to each of its direct tenants of a dwelling and each of its own tenants’ sub-tenants of a dwelling or dwellings who is liable to contribute towards the costs of the works.
Consultation is therefore required with any intermediate tenant of premises which include a dwelling and with all sub-tenants of individual dwellings or of larger premises which include at least one dwelling.
The deputy president suggested that the simplest and cheapest approach would be to deliver a consultation notice addressed to “the leaseholder” to each flat in the building or development but “the better course may be for the superior landlord to obtain the necessary information by asking the intermediate landlord (or intermediate landlords) to provide it”. Alternatively, the superior landlord could apply for a dispensation from the consultation requirements either before carrying out the work or entering into the agreement or after doing so if the issue of consultation subsequently became contentious.
Muir represented Allied London (Brunswick) Ltd, the former freeholder of the Brunswick Centre who carried out major works in 2005. The intermediate landlord, the London Borough of Council (represented by Jonathan Upton) paid a service charge in respect of these works and sought to pass on the cost to its own leaseholders through their service charge. Current and former leaseholders of flats in Foundling Court and O’Donnell Court claimed they had not been properly consulted in relation to these works and challenged whether they were liable for these costs under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The issue at this stage was who should have consulted them – their own landlord or the superior landlord who did the works. The case involves many other service charge challenges and a full hearing of the dispute is expected in April 2017.
Leaseholders of Foundling Court and O’Donnell Court v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Camden and others Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (Martin Rodger QC)