The failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Social
Valuation Services provided by Ringley's Valuation Team
Legal Services provided by Ringley Law
Building Surveying Services
Meet our Expert Property Commentators
The failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs County Bideford Ltd
Summary
Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others vs Co District Bideford Ltd Corporation Ltd is a case pitting the plaintiffs, who include Harry Johnson and June Johnson and other co-claimants against the defendant, County saying that the latter violated the contract and was entirely grossly negligent in matters touching on property administration and care. It was the role of the court to establish the failure of the defendant in its duties if there existed any, and the remedies the plaintiffs were to be accorded.
Facts
Appellants such as Harry Johnson, June Johnson, and 37 others were direct owners or lessees of residential units within a residential complex, managed by the respondent, County Bideford Ltd, as the managing company in charge of maintenance and general service of the residential complex. Agreements had been entered into between the appellants and the respondent listing out the respective obligations, commitments of each party concerned particularly based on maintenance and service charge.
Over the course of time, the plaintiffs noticed a deterioration of the state of the maintenance and upkeep of the communal property. The long history of never properly repaired leaks and neglected common property. Also, the plaintiffs received demands for excessive service charges for which, according to them, nothing was being done in the form of repairs and maintenance.
The plaintiffs wrote to County Bideford Ltd claiming on the defects, but the same were not reasonably taken care of. Consequently, the plaintiffs decided to lodge the complaint in Court against the defendant, County Bideford Ltd, on the grounds of breach of contract and negligence in as far as the company for mismanagement of the property.
Issues
The material issues in the case at bar as regards County Bideford Ltd are:
1. Whether County Bideford Ltd failed to tend to the lease agreements by not keeping the said premises in repair and those common parts clean and in good with repair condition.
2. Whether the service charges demanded to be paid by County Bideford Ltd were reasonable and justified
3. The degree to which the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or other remedies against the defendant consequent upon the actions of the latter
First Instance
In the first case, claimants produced evidence to demonstrate the dilapidation of the property from photographs, expert testimonies, and the communication they held with County Bideford Ltd. They submitted that the defendant had failed in its duties, as per the agreement, to keep the property in good repair, thereby causing residents a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
The defendant, County Bideford Ltd, argued that it had performed its duties to the best of its abilities and within the service charges collected. In addition, they argued that the plaintiffs had greatly overvalued the extent of the disrepair and that the service charges were necessary to cover the maintenance costs.
It thus went through the lease agreements, condition of the property, and reasonableness of the service charges. To develop from the judgment, it is, therefore, true that County Bideford Ltd actually breached its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance of the property. There is clear evidence of a pattern of negligence and inadequate reparations as claimed by the plaintiffs, thus proof that indeed the contract had been breached in relation to the maintenance of the property.
These findings led the court to rule in favour of the plaintiffs and deem that County Bideford Ltd needed to perform the repairs despite the high cost and bring down service costs to consider the actual condition regarding property maintenance. The court also awarded damages for inconvenience and distress caused by a defendant's breach.
Decision on Appeal
At the end of the case, County Bideford Ltd appealed the decision based on its assertion that the court had made an error in trying to pass judgment depending on the evidence and the construction of the lease agreements. They claimed that the service charges were reasonable and necessary in the continued maintenance of the holding in the long term, and further the plaintiffs had shown lack of sensitivity to the company's pecuniary constraints.
The appellate court reviewed the evidence and the judgment of the trial court, but it found no substantial error in the finding below that there was a breach of the lease agreements, nor that the service charges were unreasonable. Hence, the reason the appellate court affirmed was that it supported the decision of the trial court's belief that the County Bideford Ltd had not satisfied its end of the lease agreements and that the service charges were not commensurate with the type of maintenance which was being provided.
However the court of appeal made some reductions in the damages awarded in the light of some mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. The overall effect was that County Bideford Ltd was still to proceed and undertake the necessary repairs with suitable adjustment of the services charges.
Comments
The case of Harry Johnson, June Johnson and Others v County Bideford Ltd promptly indicates that property management companies are to fulfil the terms and conditions bindings of the contract. This also brings forth the point of notion that the landlords and the property managers have to make sure that the maintenance or the repairing work is conducted in an appropriate and time efficient manner.
1. Contractual Obligations-: There is the presumption that property managing companies will perform according to the terms of the various lease agreements that should hold them accountable for typical maintenance and up-keeping. Their service would be to ensure that properties are maintained to a reasonable standard.
2. Service Charges-: Service charges should be reasonable. They should reflect the cost of maintaining and repairing the property. If such charges are excessive or unjustifiable, then it is quite likely that a competent.
3. Rights of Tenant: A Tenant, as well as a property owner, can both expect proper maintenance of property, and even go for a legal action in case the property manager is being irresponsible in her/his scope of work.
4. Evidence and Documentation: There has to be proper documentation from both sides with legitimate evidence of communications, repairs, or charges that will come handy to help them in proving their stance in any argument.
This is really a leading case in a sense that it creates the precedent of future property maintenance and service charge disputes and reconfirms the equity between reasonable service charges and the necessity of proper property maintenance, affirming legal principles being put in place to protect tenants and property owners from the management's neglecting practice.
Valuation Services provided by The Ringley Group
Social
Meet our Expert Property Commentators
Mary-Anne Bowring FTPI FRICS FARLA FCABE Founder/Head of Asset Management
Strategic partnerships, holistic delivery/ opportunities, growth, value engineering, thought leadership
Ian Barber MD BTR Mobilisation & Leasing
Runs HQ & site lease-up teams. Drives rent pricing, mobilisation, marketing, happy residents!
Jon Curtis MRICS Head of Building Engineering
Chartered Building Surveyor. Lectures on EWS1 & building safety. Runs CapEx programmes.
Kate Robinson MTPI MD Blocks/FM Management (London Region)
Master plan setup, ops and staffing and resident engagement. ISO45001 champion.
Lee Harle Partner Ringley Law
Plot conveyancing. Debt litigation. Group Company Secretary.
Natalie Birmingham Helpdesk Support Manager
Trainer & Helpdesk Manager: people, systems,contractors. ISO45001 supply chain accreditation.
Chris Georgalis MRICS Head of Commercial Valuation
Chartered Valuer. Rental valuations: retail, leisure. IRR modelling and valuations for secured lending. Compulsory purchase & rent reviews
Nichola Pughe MRICS Head of Residential Valuation
Chartered Valuer. Rental development & mixed use valuations, IRR modelling. Leasehold enfranchisement specialist
