000			01766cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS65271
008			020404n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u117353
245			_aHeron Maple House Ltd v Central Estates Ltd
260			_c2002
490			_aEstates Gazette Law Reports _v[2002] 13 EG 102-106(5)
520			_aCLCC 21 December 2001. The claimant H was freehold owner of a large building that contained, on its upper floors, a mixture of office, domestic and commercial accommodation. The domestic accommodation contained a number of flats. The defendant (C) held a headlease of the plant room,lifts, flats and the hallways, staircases and roof of the building. The part 20 defendants, Camden LBC held an underlease of substantially the same premises as demised by the headlease. Camden had demised the flats to individual occupier tenants. Both leases contained service charge clauses. In 1999 H carried out repairs, and contended that £17665 was due from the tenants. C had not produced estimates or a consultation exercise required by Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s20. H contended this was the first time they had heard of the works, or their cost, and sought a declaration that section 20 did not apply. Both Central and Camden argued that as the demised properties contained flats, section 20 did apply. "Held", section 20 applied to the tenancies created by the headlease and underlease respectively.
590			_aABS
650			_aSERVICE CHARGES
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S20
650			_aHERON MAPLE HOUSE LTD V CENTRAL ESTATES LTD
650			_aFLATS
650			_aDEMISED PREMISES
650			_aUNDERLEASES
650			_aHEADLEASES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c69917 _d69917