Frequently Asked Questions

Whether or not the service charges charged thereunder by Charlegrove Securities Ltd were reasonable and conformed with the terms of the lease.

GILJE V CHARLEGROVE SECURITIES LTD (2003)

Summary

Gilje v Charlegrove Securities Ltd is a case of actual disagreement between a lessee, Mr. Gilje, and a freeholder, Charlegrove Securities Ltd, about service charges. Fundamentally, the issue was whether or not the service charges charged thereunder by Charlegrove Securities Ltd were reasonable and conformed with the terms of the lease. This case gives substantial guidance upon the legal position concerning service charges under residential leases and how landlords should account for them.

Facts

Mr Gilje was the tenant of a flat in a building owned by Charlegrove Securities Ltd and subletting it to him under a long lease. He was, under the terms of his lease, obliged to pay service charges for the repair and maintenance of the common parts and for services provided by Charlegrove Securities Ltd. Over time, he had fallen out over the levels of service charge that Charlegrove Securities Ltd charged, claiming that these were excessive and disproportionate to any actual cost incurred for the general maintenance and services provided.

The service charge in this case included charges for various maintenance works, insurance premium and management fees. Mr Gilje objected to the said service charges as not being reasonable and also claimed that no adequate document and proof as to quantum had been provided by Charlegrove Securities Ltd.

Issues

The main issues arising from the appeal are:

1. Whether the service charged claimed by Charlegrove Security Ltd was reasonably incurred.

2. Whether Charlegrove Securities Ltd had complied with the statutory and contractual obligations to provide enough information and evidence that justified the service charge.

3. The meaning of the express terms of lease as far as the scope and manner of calculation of service charges were concerned .

First Instance

That was taken to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in the first instance, which deals with problems related to leasehold houses that include issues pertaining to the reasonableness of service charges. On this matter, therefore, the LVT will consider all evidence advanced by the two parties—that is, the accounts and documentation provided by Charlegrove Securities Ltd and the objections advanced by Mr. Gilje.

It held that Charlegrove Securities Limited had been unable to provide sufficient evidence to justify a number of the service charges. The said charges, it has been held by the tribunal, were excessive and not reflective of actual costs incurred for the services provided. Consequently, the LVT reduced the service charges drastically. It concluded that the sums demanded by Charlegrove Securities Ltd were unreasonable and that they had also failed to discharge their obligation to provide clear and transparent accounts.

Appeal Decision

Charlegrove Securities Ltd appealed to the Lands Tribunal against the decision of the LVT. The grounds of appeal were on challenging the discounts allowed by the LVT and pleading for the reasonableness of the service charges incurred.

The Lands Tribunal concurred with the LVT's decision and opined that Charlegrove Securities Ltd. had failed to give good enough reasons for justifying the service charges at the sum it had charged. The Tribunal went on to hold, inter alia, that the system for the administration of service charges was meant to be open and transparent. In case of the charge to be at reasonable prices and proportionate to services, clear, exact, and truthful demonstrations of the accounts leading up to the sum claimed should be clearly open to landlords.

The Lands Tribunal made the point that there is always a right to challenge service charges by a leaseholder and the landlord is under a duty to provide evidence in support of his claims. It was by virtue of the ruling in this case that emphasis was made initially that there had to be statutory as well as contractual binding requirement imposed upon landlords for making information over service charges clear and transparent.

Comments

The decision in Gilje v Charlegrove Securities Ltd has some fundamental implications for both landlords and leaseholders concerning the management of service charges arising under residential leases and, likewise, their dispute resolution processes. These include:

1. Reasonable charge: It was reiterated that service charges have to be reasonable in nature and for actual costs incurred for the services. Levying excessive charges without justification has no basis.

2. Openness and Transparency: Underpinning the ruling is the requirement that landlords are necessary to maintaining openness and accuracy in their service charge accounts. Proper documentation and evidence should back up the quantum claimed.

3. Leaseholders' Rights: This decision has further Readied such facilities of relief in tribunals and courts, on the ground that the leaseholders can rightly object to any service charges which, according to their perception are unreasonable.

4. Burden on the Landlords: A statutory and contractual duty lies upon the landlords to make full and clear disclosures in respect of the service charges, otherwise, the same will have to be reduced or disallowed.

5. Precedent for Future Dispute: The ruling will set a precedent for any future service charge disputes and hence give guideline parameters on reasonableness, transparency, and accountability.

Hence, it is the important case in the area of leasehold property law, reinforcing the balancing act between the rights of landlords to recover their costs and that of protecting the leaseholders against unreasonable charges. The judgment reiterates values about transparency and accountability on such matters and further reiterates that a landlord needs to prove with immensely clear and convincing evidence the service charge claims.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Social