000			02108cab a2200265 4500
001			L136288
008			070123n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u136288
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aOakfern Properties v Desmond Ruddy _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWCA Civ 1389, 25 October 2006. The appellant owned the head-lease of 24 separate residential flats and a property management company was the tenant. The respondent was a subtenant of one of the flats. The subtenants were obliged to pay maintenance charges to the property management company , which had been levied on the property management company by the freeholder. The respondent sought to challenge the maintenance charge by relying on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 on the basis that it was a "service charge" and was unreasonable in amount. Preliminary issues had been determined by the leasehold valuation tribunal in the respondent's favour. The appellant submitted that it could not have been Parliament's intention that a mesne landlord, such as the property management company, should be able to take advantage of the service charge provisions of the 1985 Act. "Held": appeal dismissed. S 38 of the 1985 Act, which defined "dwelling", did not require that the tenant had to be in occupation of the dwelling, therefore it could include a tenant who had sublet. The property management company was a tenant of a building comprising a number of dwellings but was not a tenant of a building occupied as a separate dwelling.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aOAKFERN PROPERTIES LTD V RUDDY
650	2	4	_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985
650	2	4	_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S18
650	2	4	_aRENT ACT 1968
650	2	4	_aRENT ACT 1977
650	2	4	_aHORFORD INVESTMENTS LTD V LAMBERT
650	2	4	_aHERON MAPLE HOUSE LTD V CENTRAL ESTATES LTD
651		4	_aLONDON
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1389.html _zView the item free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c78233 _d78233