Image from Google Jackets

R(on the application of Daejan Properties Ltd) v London LVT

Series: Estates Gazette Law Reports ; [2001] 43 EG 187-190(4)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: CA 12 July 2001. The appellant landlord (D) owned a block of flats let on long leases where leasees paid service charges. A number of leasees applied to the respondent London LVT under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s19(2A) claiming that service charges had been unreasonable and excessive over a number of years. At a preliminary hearing, the LVT interpreted the phrase 'alleged to be payable' in s19(2A) to refer to charges paid but not agreed as well as to those outstanding. The LVT also found the limitation period of 12 years to be applicable in the case of service charges. D's application for judicial review of the LVT's decision was dismissed. D appealed. Appeal allowed on the grounds that the LVT's jurisdiction is restricted to unpaid service charges and that the Limitation Act 1980 has no application to applications to the LVT under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s19. Full copy of judgement available on http://porch.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/Search/0F587CAFA3EE0EE180256A8B0036A64E?OpenDocument.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS64698 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 115460-1001

CA 12 July 2001. The appellant landlord (D) owned a block of flats let on long leases where leasees paid service charges. A number of leasees applied to the respondent London LVT under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s19(2A) claiming that service charges had been unreasonable and excessive over a number of years. At a preliminary hearing, the LVT interpreted the phrase 'alleged to be payable' in s19(2A) to refer to charges paid but not agreed as well as to those outstanding. The LVT also found the limitation period of 12 years to be applicable in the case of service charges. D's application for judicial review of the LVT's decision was dismissed. D appealed. Appeal allowed on the grounds that the LVT's jurisdiction is restricted to unpaid service charges and that the Limitation Act 1980 has no application to applications to the LVT under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s19. Full copy of judgement available on http://porch.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/Search/0F587CAFA3EE0EE180256A8B0036A64E?OpenDocument.