Dispute regarding the reasonableness and validity of service charges demanded under the terms and provisions of a residential lease.

Johnson v County Bideford Ltd [2012] UKUT 457 (LC)

Summary

The case of Johnson v County Bideford Ltd [2012] UKUT 457 (LC) arose because of a dispute between a lessee, Mr. Johnson, and the freeholder, County Bideford Ltd, regarding the reasonableness and validity of service charges demanded under the terms and provisions of a residential lease. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) of the judiciary had to establish justification and reasonableness of the service charges, placed in evidence versus the provisions of the lease agreement.

Facts

Mr. Johnson was a tenant in a flat within a building owned by County Bideford Ltd. The tenancy agreement required Mr. Johnson to pay service charges to fund the costs of maintenance and repair of common parts and services provided in the building. In the course of time, Mr. Johnson made applications to the Lands Valuation Tribunal disputing the service charges demanded by County Bideford Ltd on the grounds that the amounts demanded were unreasonable and related to the carrying out of works which were not required or which were done unacceptably.

Specifically, the disputed charges concerned the cost of exterior painting, roof repairs, and awards for management fees. Mr. Johnson contends the first two were works not actually being carried out as they should have been or the charges grossly inflated to pay for spent forces, and the management fees were not utilised for the purpose for which they were given.

Issues

Agreement the service charges were due. Disagreement about the amount, the work of a contractor not to a good enough standard and some work not done, and some work not required.

Application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), a specialist tribunal

1. If the service charges required by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable.

2. If the particular work and amenities for which charging was reasonable, necessary and properly carried out.

3. The meaning of the words in the lease to determine if an item is included within the service charge and if the method of calculation is reasonable.

First Instance

He argued that it was not necessary to paint the exterior. The repairs to the roof were not properly done, and the management fees were out of proportion to the services provided. The case that the first appellant adduced was evidence disputing the reasonableness of the service charges. The tribunal considered a lot of documentary evidence. There were accounts and invoices but there was also oral evidence from both sides.

Several points were adjudged in favor of Mr. Johnson by the First-tier Tribunal. It found that some of the charges were too excessive and the works were not necessary or insufficiently done, or works not carried out concordant to the quality required. Therefore, the tribunal had the service charges readjusted down to an amount feasible to cover the proper and necessary expenses relating to the maintenance and repair.

Decision on Appeal

County Bideford Ltd appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, this was appealing its claim for the restoration of the demands in service charges. The appeal was grounded on the necessity and standard of the works occasioned by an earlier error of law on the part of the First-tier Tribunal in its decision.

On appeal, Upper Tribunal considered the holdings and materials upon which the First-tier Tribunal based its findings. The Upper Tribunal made clear that it had concurred with the analysis made by the First-tier Tribunal, which had therefore judged the service charges as demanded originally to be unreasonable in part. The judgment therefore reinforces the need for such extremely detailed and clear evidence and ensuring the amounts claimed reflect necessary and reasonable costs.

The outcome beared that the service charges must be borne by the lessees. They must be represented by the benefits received from renting the leaseholds and the costs of the actual work conducted for service and repairs. The Upper Tribunal noted that the legislation really was imposed to provide transparency and accountability for the administration of service charges to prevent claimed in perceptions wrongful overcharges of work that was not done or not to an appropriate extent.

Comments

Ever since, this decision in Johnson v County Bideford Ltd stands as the milestone judgment for the practitioners in relation to service charges imposed by the landlords and management companies in the residential leases and also guidelines on the management of supporters and rent arrears under the common hold and leasehold reform act. Important lessons to learn out of this case include the following:

1. Charges have to be reasonable and justified: Landlords should assure that service charges levied by them are reasonable and reasonably justifiable. They must give a detailed account and evidence to account for any cost relate to maintenance and repairs.

2. Reasonableness and Relevance of the Works: Service charges must be related to works which are relevant and well done. A landlord may not recover from a lessee the charges for works which are irrelevant and poorly executed.

3. Documentation and Openness: There is a great need for documentation and explained computation and allocation of the service charges. A landlord must keep full records of expenses and how they are charged.

4. Role of Tribunal in Examining Charges: This role is performed by both the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. Their decisions emphasize that there must be just and reasonable expense and due compliance with the lease so that the lessees may not incur undesired charges.

5. Precedent for Future Disputes: The case establishes a precedent for future service charge disputes and provides a rough idea about what would amount to a reasonable charge and what constitutes necessary evidence.

All in all, Johnson v County Bideford Ltd is an exemplary case bringing to the fore the balance that has to be struck between a landlord's rights in cost recovery and a lessee's protection from unreasonably or unreasonably high bills. Again, the judgment reinforces the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability in the administration of service charges in residential leases and, therefore, representation and protection of the interests of both parties.

Valuation Services provided by The Ringley Group

Bank Valuations

Development Valuations

Rent Reviews

Tax Valuations

Balance Sheet Valuations

Social