Auger and another v LB Camden [electronic resource]
Auger and another v LB Camden [electronic resource]
- London Lands Tribunal 2008
LRX 81 2007, 14 March 2008. Considers how closely landlords should consult tenants when employing contractors in cases where it intends to bill leaseholders for works carried out. The appellant (A) appealed against a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) decision that the respondent Council (C) be granted dispensation from setting up framework agreements to follow leaseholder consultation rules. C had argued that due to its intention to enter into a long-term deal with a contractor and in order to reduce costs, it was unable to provide meaningful estimates to tenants. LVT agreed, and A appealed to the Lands Tribunal. "Held": The withdrawal of consultation rights from A could foreseeably cause detriment to A. It would in effect give carte blanche to C to arrange for any contractors it saw fit and pass the charges on to A. C had not given substantial reason for doing this, save to say that at the time it was not able to provide useful estimates. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for A to argue against any costs incurred. Appeal allowed.
Advanced
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985
TANFERN LTD V CAMERON-MACDONALD
PEPPER V HART
SERVICE CHARGES (CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2003
England and Wales--1543-
346.4104343 $2 18
LRX 81 2007, 14 March 2008. Considers how closely landlords should consult tenants when employing contractors in cases where it intends to bill leaseholders for works carried out. The appellant (A) appealed against a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) decision that the respondent Council (C) be granted dispensation from setting up framework agreements to follow leaseholder consultation rules. C had argued that due to its intention to enter into a long-term deal with a contractor and in order to reduce costs, it was unable to provide meaningful estimates to tenants. LVT agreed, and A appealed to the Lands Tribunal. "Held": The withdrawal of consultation rights from A could foreseeably cause detriment to A. It would in effect give carte blanche to C to arrange for any contractors it saw fit and pass the charges on to A. C had not given substantial reason for doing this, save to say that at the time it was not able to provide useful estimates. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for A to argue against any costs incurred. Appeal allowed.
Advanced
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985
TANFERN LTD V CAMERON-MACDONALD
PEPPER V HART
SERVICE CHARGES (CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2003
England and Wales--1543-
346.4104343 $2 18