Image from Google Jackets

Maunder Taylor v Blaquire

Series: Estates Gazette ; [2002] 30 EG 135-139 (5)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: CC 14 June 2002. Claimant (M) was appointed manager of a block of flats by the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 as the landlord was in administrative receivership. M claimed arrears of service charges against defendant tenant (B) who counter-claimed for damages for disrepair. B contended that M as manager owed the same duties of repair as the landlord under the flat's lease and he would be liable for the breach of obligations from the date of his appointment. Furthermore B was entitled to set off his claim for damages against the service charge claim. "Held" The manager did not owe the tenant the duty of, or equivalent to, that owed by the landlord and that the imposition of such duties would be inconsistent with the scheme under Part XI of the 1987 Act. The set-off of damages against service charges would be inequitable as the funds held by the manager were subject to statutory trust against which it would not be appropriate to allow a set-off.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS65749 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 119167-1001

CC 14 June 2002. Claimant (M) was appointed manager of a block of flats by the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 as the landlord was in administrative receivership. M claimed arrears of service charges against defendant tenant (B) who counter-claimed for damages for disrepair. B contended that M as manager owed the same duties of repair as the landlord under the flat's lease and he would be liable for the breach of obligations from the date of his appointment. Furthermore B was entitled to set off his claim for damages against the service charge claim. "Held" The manager did not owe the tenant the duty of, or equivalent to, that owed by the landlord and that the imposition of such duties would be inconsistent with the scheme under Part XI of the 1987 Act. The set-off of damages against service charges would be inequitable as the funds held by the manager were subject to statutory trust against which it would not be appropriate to allow a set-off.