Your Name (required)

Description (required)

Your Phone Number (required)

We will endeavour to contact you
within the next hour.

Daejan v. Benson: where are we at?

We have made various posts about service charges etc on long leaseholds but still have questions asked about the infamous case of Daejan v. Benson.

To recap this started life as an LVT claim as to whether service charges were recoverable or if they were capped due to a failure by Daejan to comply with Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 and subsequently on application to dispense with the need to consult under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. In both instances the LVT found against Daejan who appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) who in November 2009 upheld the LVT decisions. So off went Daejan to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal gave its judgment in late January 2011 (Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson & Ors). The Court of Appeal upheld the previous decisions and therefore found against Daejan. Not put off Daejan sort leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and was granted the same at the end of June 2011. Currently we understand that the matter is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court and judgment given towards the end of this year.

So where does this leave the law? If you are a Landlord (whether arms length or residents) you must ensure that you comply with the Section 20 Consultation requirements to the letter! To do otherwise leaves you open to significant risk that costs will not be recoverable. As the law stands the financial consequences to the freeholder are not a matter for the LVT to take account of when considering prejudice. What needs to be shown is that a failure to comply must not cause any genuine prejudice to the Leaseholders. Whilst LVT’s may have substantial sympathy with residents management companies under the regulations no differentiation is made. LVT’s currently are likely to take a strict view given the fact that the current statement of the law was supported by both the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and the Court of Appeal.

Landlords and those advising them do have options. Given the serious ramifications of a decision going against a Landlord after works have been completed it is worth bearing in mind that they can apply for a prior determination. When there is opposition to a scheme and it is clear from the conduct of some leaseholders that they will challenge the works this may mean despite there being a delay that an application should be made to the LVT. Given most LVT panels can hear cases with fairly short timescales ( assuming no appeals) then this can be factored in to the process and quotes etc can be obtained which perhaps have a longer “shelf life” than normal to allow for an application. It seems to us that given the various rules and regulations specifically allowing prior determinations this must be the prudent step given that it provides Landlords with a safety net to check compliance if any doubt in the Landlords or their agents mind.

We will of course have to see what view the Supreme Court takes and we will be sure to blog on this when we know more!

4 Comments

  • Anonymous 9th May 2012 at 12:34 pm

    Hi there, are you aware that there is a related case between Westminster City Council and Emanuel House leaseholders where WCC are appealing the decision of the LVT with regards to Major Works of c£2.2 million pounds. The LVT found in favour of the leaseholders based on WCC’s failure to consult…but WCC have appealed and have one eye on Daejan as the decision may influence this case…

    • PainSmith 9th May 2012 at 2:07 pm

      We suspect there are probably quite a lot of cases waiting the outcome of the Daejan appeal to see what guidance the Supreme Court offers to the lower courts and Tribunals.

  • Anonymous 9th May 2012 at 12:36 pm

    We would very much appreciate you hearing our story and how an agent who represented many leaseholders during the initial LVT hearing is attempting to defraud leaseholders of vast amounts over and above what was agreed with him to support representation at the LVT. There are lessons for other leaseholders that need to be shared…

Leave a Reply

Please wait...

Subscribe to our blog

Want to be notified when our article is published? Enter your email address and name below to be the first to know.