Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – Service charge – Written demand – Requirement to give name and address of landlord in demand in accordance with section 47(1)(a) of 1987 Act – Demands served on appellant tenant giving name of director of first respondent landlord instead of company name – Whether demands failing to comply with section 47(1)(a) – LVT finding no breach of section 47(1)(a) and determining service charge to be due – Appeal allowed
The respondents owned the freehold of a development comprising the two blocks of six flats until it was acquired from them by collective enfranchisement in September 2011. The appellant was the long leaseholder of two of the flats. At the time of the collective enfranchisement, there was a dispute as to the service charges payable in respect of the appellant’s flats and an application was made to the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) for a determination of the charges for the years 2005 to 2011.
The respondent sought to recover just under £3,462 for each flat. The appellant contended that the service charge was not due since the relevant service charge demands had not complied with the requirement, under section 47(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, to give the name and address of the landlord. The demands in question had named all the freeholders save for the first respondent company, in place of which they had instead given the name of one of its directors.
Rejecting that argument, the LVT held that the error of naming the director rather than the company did not breach section 47(1)(a), had caused no prejudice to the appellant and had been rectified by naming the first respondent correctly on the written application to the LVT. It determined the service charge payable as £3,225 per flat. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The definition of “demand” in section 47(4) of the 1987 Act included a demand for a service charge. Section 47 required that the name and address of the landlord be included in the demand. The respondents had failed to identify the landlord correctly since they had named a director rather than the first respondent company. The provision of the landlord’s name and address was obligatory. Section 47 did not require the lessee to suffer prejudice in order for there to be a breach of its provisions. The LVT had therefore erred in considering whether any prejudice had been suffered.
The requirement to provide the name and address of the landlord was not simply for the purpose of providing the tenant with an address through which it could communicate with the landlord; it was to enable the tenant to identify the landlord: Beitov Properties Ltd v Martin [2012] UKUT 133 (LC); [2012] 3 EGLR 21; [2012] 35 EG 74 applied. Even if the inclusion of the first respondent on the demand had no practical benefit in the circumstances of the case, it was still a breach of section 47(1)(a), such that, pursuant to section 47(2), no service charge was due before the information was furnished on the demand in accordance with section 47.
The failure to include the name and address in accordance with section 47 could not be rectified by providing that information on the application to the LVT. The statutory requirement was to provide the name and address of the landlord on the demand.
Consequently, the LVT had erred in finding that the service charge was payable. The demand would have to be re-served and, if necessary, further proceedings brought for recovery of that charge in the sum determined by the LVT.
The appeal was determined on the written representations of the parties.
Sally Dobson, barrister
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – Service charge – Written demand – Requirement to give name and address of landlord in demand in accordance with section 47(1)(a) of 1987 Act – Demands served on appellant tenant giving name of director of first respondent landlord instead of company name – Whether demands failing to comply with section 47(1)(a) – LVT finding no breach of section 47(1)(a) and determining service charge to be due – Appeal allowedThe respondents owned the freehold of a development comprising the two blocks of six flats until it was acquired from them by collective enfranchisement in September 2011. The appellant was the long leaseholder of two of the flats. At the time of the collective enfranchisement, there was a dispute as to the service charges payable in respect of the appellant’s flats and an application was made to the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) for a determination of the charges for the years 2005 to 2011.The respondent sought to recover just under £3,462 for each flat. The appellant contended that the service charge was not due since the relevant service charge demands had not complied with the requirement, under section 47(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, to give the name and address of the landlord. The demands in question had named all the freeholders save for the first respondent company, in place of which they had instead given the name of one of its directors.Rejecting that argument, the LVT held that the error of naming the director rather than the company did not breach section 47(1)(a), had caused no prejudice to the appellant and had been rectified by naming the first respondent correctly on the written application to the LVT. It determined the service charge payable as £3,225 per flat. The appellant appealed.Held: The appeal was allowed. The definition of “demand” in section 47(4) of the 1987 Act included a demand for a service charge. Section 47 required that the name and address of the landlord be included in the demand. The respondents had failed to identify the landlord correctly since they had named a director rather than the first respondent company. The provision of the landlord’s name and address was obligatory. Section 47 did not require the lessee to suffer prejudice in order for there to be a breach of its provisions. The LVT had therefore erred in considering whether any prejudice had been suffered.The requirement to provide the name and address of the landlord was not simply for the purpose of providing the tenant with an address through which it could communicate with the landlord; it was to enable the tenant to identify the landlord: Beitov Properties Ltd v Martin [2012] UKUT 133 (LC); [2012] 3 EGLR 21; [2012] 35 EG 74 applied. Even if the inclusion of the first respondent on the demand had no practical benefit in the circumstances of the case, it was still a breach of section 47(1)(a), such that, pursuant to section 47(2), no service charge was due before the information was furnished on the demand in accordance with section 47.The failure to include the name and address in accordance with section 47 could not be rectified by providing that information on the application to the LVT. The statutory requirement was to provide the name and address of the landlord on the demand.Consequently, the LVT had erred in finding that the service charge was payable. The demand would have to be re-served and, if necessary, further proceedings brought for recovery of that charge in the sum determined by the LVT.The appeal was determined on the written representations of the parties.Sally Dobson, barrister