Camden v leaseholders of flats on Grafton Way [electronic resource]
Camden v leaseholders of flats on Grafton Way [electronic resource]
[2008] EWLands LRX_185_2006, 30 June 2008. Case is of importance as it shows that residential service charges may not be recovered in cases where the correct procedures have not been followed. Camden owned two blocks of flats and consulted on proposed works to improve them in 2003-2004. The works were completed in 2006 and they tried to claim £504 000 in service charges from the residents; while the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal said that they were only entitled to £9 250, or £250 per flat as it failed to comply with the requirements of the Landlord and tenant Act 1985 as regards notification. Appeal dismissed: Lands Tribunal agreed that the main issue was whether prejudice had been suffered by tenants because of a failure to comply with the compensation requirements. The Tribunal found that the failure of Camden to provide information relating to the works (specifically estimates), was a gross error that prejudiced the tenants severely and impacted upon their basic rights to consultation.
CAMDEN V LEASEHOLDERS OF FLATS ON GRAFTON WAY
AUGER & ORS V LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN
ELTHAM PROPERTIES LTD V KENNY & OTHERS
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985
SERVICE CHARGES (CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2003
WELLCOME TRUST LTD V ROMINES
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWLands LRX_185_2006, 30 June 2008. Case is of importance as it shows that residential service charges may not be recovered in cases where the correct procedures have not been followed. Camden owned two blocks of flats and consulted on proposed works to improve them in 2003-2004. The works were completed in 2006 and they tried to claim £504 000 in service charges from the residents; while the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal said that they were only entitled to £9 250, or £250 per flat as it failed to comply with the requirements of the Landlord and tenant Act 1985 as regards notification. Appeal dismissed: Lands Tribunal agreed that the main issue was whether prejudice had been suffered by tenants because of a failure to comply with the compensation requirements. The Tribunal found that the failure of Camden to provide information relating to the works (specifically estimates), was a gross error that prejudiced the tenants severely and impacted upon their basic rights to consultation.
CAMDEN V LEASEHOLDERS OF FLATS ON GRAFTON WAY
AUGER & ORS V LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN
ELTHAM PROPERTIES LTD V KENNY & OTHERS
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985
SERVICE CHARGES (CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2003
WELLCOME TRUST LTD V ROMINES
England and Wales--1543-