Image from Google Jackets

McLuskey v Scottish Homes

Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; 1993 SLT(Lands Tr), 17-25(9)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: LT Scotland 9 June 1992. A tenant M, applied to Scottish Homes to purchase her flatted house, one of a block of 18. An offer to sell contained a condition stating that the sale was subject to the purchaser`s liability for the maintenance of certain common parts connected with the other 18 houses, and for a share of maintenance costs of certain common parts, such as paths and grassed areas throughout the estate. M objected to paying for maintenance and repair of those common parts which lay some distance from her house. M requested a variation so as to restrict responsibility for maintenance and repair to those parts specified in the feu disposition. Held, that the proposed imposition of a liability to share in the cost of maintaining the common parts of the whole estate was reasonable as the respondents` scheme for apportioning such costs over the whole estate brought costs for each owner occupier down to manageable proportions. It would now be unreasonable in the interests of previo
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS48261 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 65772-1001

LT Scotland 9 June 1992. A tenant M, applied to Scottish Homes to purchase her flatted house, one of a block of 18. An offer to sell contained a condition stating that the sale was subject to the purchaser`s liability for the maintenance of certain common parts connected with the other 18 houses, and for a share of maintenance costs of certain common parts, such as paths and grassed areas throughout the estate. M objected to paying for maintenance and repair of those common parts which lay some distance from her house. M requested a variation so as to restrict responsibility for maintenance and repair to those parts specified in the feu disposition. Held, that the proposed imposition of a liability to share in the cost of maintaining the common parts of the whole estate was reasonable as the respondents` scheme for apportioning such costs over the whole estate brought costs for each owner occupier down to manageable proportions. It would now be unreasonable in the interests of previo