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| 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