LVT/0021/06/14: 95-97 Cathedral Way, Cardiff
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Applied Rules | Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Service Charges |
| Date | 15 January 2015 |
| Year | 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Section 27A and Section 20C |
| Court | Leasehold Valuation Tribunals |
| Judgement Number | LVT/0021/06/14 |
1
Y TRIBIWNLYS EIDDO PRESWYL
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL
LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL
Reference: LVT/0021/06/14
In the matter of 95 - 97 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF20 4DZ
In the matter of Applications under Sections 27A, 20ZA and 20C of the Landlord and
Tribunal David Evans LLB LLM
Kerry Watkins FRICS
Applicants Mr Brynley Gwynne Llewellyn Morgan and Ms Julia Claire
Morgan
Respondents Mr D Fletcher, Mrs C Jarrett, Mr P Mackenzie and Ms A
Robinson, Rev A and Mrs K Kettle, Ms A Cartledge and Mr M
Lemkey, Mr and Mrs G Fairclough
DECISION
Background
1 On the 15th and 16th September 2014, we heard an application brought by
the Applicants, who are the freehold owners of two adjoining semi-detached houses
in Cathedral Road Cardiff (the Building), to determine the amounts payable by way
of service charge by each of the Respondents who are the lessees of 6 of the 8 flats
which comprise the majority of the Building. The remaining two flats are owned in
some capacity by the Applicants. In addition there is a dental surgery on the ground
floor of number 97 and a dental laboratory in the basement below the dental surgery.
The application relates to service costs incurred between:
- 4th April 2012 and 28th September 2012 totalling £7,146.02 (2012 costs);
- 29th September 2012 and 24th March 2013 totalling £1,535.84 (2013 costs);
and estimated service costs to be incurred between:
- 25th March 2013 and 24th March 2014 totalling £61,346.57 (2014 costs).
The 2012 costs technically fall into the financial year ending 24th March 2013, but
that is not an issue for us. The application in respect of the 2012 costs originally only
related to Mr Fletcher. However, at a pre-trial review held on the 15th July 2014, the
Rev and Mrs Kettle and Mr and Mrs Fairclough asked for permission to be joined as
Respondents in respect of this demand as they wished to question the payability of
an invoice for roofing work, which was Mr Fletcher’s only objection
.Mr and Mrs Fairclough also asked that they be permitted to challenge the
electricity costs for 2012. The Applicants confirmed through their Solicitor that they
2
had no objection to this and so we have directed accordingly. Mr and Mrs Fairclough
and the Rev and Mrs Kettle have raised other issues in respect of the 2013 costs
and we shall refer to these later in this decision. The applications in respect of the
2013 costs and the 2014 costs concerned all the Respondents.
2 The relationship between the parties has for many years been somewhat
troubled. We shall not go into the details of the many and varied disputes save to
say that the basic problem is, what the Respondents regard as, the inequitable
allocation of the service costs. The Respondents are paying 1/6th, 1/8th and 1/12th
of those costs, whilst the Applicants as owners of the two largest flats only pay
1/32nd and 1/96th. In addition, the Applicants are entitled to receive 15% of those
costs as a management charge. The combined effect of the apportionment of the
service costs and the management percentage is that the Applicants pay nothing
towards the service costs, despite owning the two largest flats, and receive a net
management percentage of nearly 11%. An application to vary the percentages was
overturned in the Upper Tribunal.
3 The issues which we have been asked to resolve relate to the following:
(a) whether certain Respondents - Mr Fletcher (flat 3), the Rev and Mrs
Kettle (flat 6) and Mr and Mrs Fairclough (flat 8) - should be required to contribute to
the cost of work carried out to the roof of number 97 Cathedral Road by Martin
Roofing Contractors (MRC) and described in an invoice dated the 24th September
2012 as “replace lead work”, the cost of which i s stated as being £1,440.00 inclusive
of VAT. The cost also includes the replacement of some damaged slates.
(b) whether certain Respondents - in particular, Mr Fairclough - are
required to contribute to the cost of insuring the Building under the terms of their
respective leases.
(c) whether certain Respondents - in particular Mr Fairclough and the Rev
and Mrs Kettle are required to contribute to the cost of the communal electricity, fire
extinguisher service and fire alarm/lights service under terms of their respective
leases.
(d) whether the Respondents should be required to contribute to the costs
charged by Roger North Long and Partners , Chartered Surveyors (RNL), in respect
of an invoice for £695 inclusive of VAT in respect of and arising from the statutory
consultation carried out on the Applicants’ behalf relating to certain building works to
be carried out at the Building.
(e) the amount which the Respondents should be required to contribute on
account of those building works and to RNL’s fees for supervision.
It will be necessary for us to determine these issues before we are able to address
the detail of the amounts payable by each Respondent.
The Leases
4 One of the difficulties in this case is that the leases are not all the same. We
were provided with copies of leases for Flat 3 (Mr Fletcher), Flat 6 (Rev and Mrs
Kettle) and Flat 8 (Mr and Mrs Fairclough). We did not have copies of the leases for
Flat 95A (Mrs C Jarrett), Flat 1 (Mr MacKenzie and Ms Robinson), Flat 4
(Ms Cartledge and Mr Lemkey). At the conclusion of this decision we shall refer the
3
application back to the parties for them to seek agreement as to the actual amounts
payable with liberty for any party to apply to us in the event that they are unable to
Kettle Lease” and Flat 8 as “the Fairclough Lease”. Mrs Fairclough has, in addition,
a lease of the restricted attic space above Flat 8. No issue arises concerning this.
5 In respect of the Fletcher Lease, the Kettle Lease, and the Fairclough Lease,
the Lessors are Rowland Vaughan Jones Morgan and Anita Clare Morgan. The
leases are for 99 years from the 25th March 1989 in consideration of differing
premiums and at differing ground rents. The relevant clauses referred to in this
application are:
The Fletcher Lease - Flat 3
Date - 14th December 1990
Premium - £36,000
Ground Rent - £100 pa
Premises (First Schedule)
ALL THAT First Floor Flat…ncluding the ceilings and floors and the window frames
of the said flat …PROVIDED there shall be excluded from this demise the main
structural parts of the [Building] including the roof foundations and external walls but
not the window frames of the said flat and the glass therein nor the interior faces of
such of the external walls as bound the said flat.
Retained Parts
The main structure and other parts of the [Building] comprising all parts not demised
by the Flat Lease or any other Lease of any part of the [Building] including the roof
foundations and external walls (but not the glass of the window of the flat nor the
window frame…) and the common use areas (if any) and wall s around part thereof
and such other parts of the Property which shall not be demised as aforesaid
Lessee’s covenants
Clause 2(ii) - To pay one eighth of the Service Charge (as hereinafter defined) which
shall from time to time be prescribed by the Lessor relating to matters specified in
the Third Schedule.
Clause 2(iii) - To pay on demand and on account of the said contribution to the
Service Charge such proper sum as shall reasonably be specified by the Lessor’s
surveyor or auditor (whose decision shall be final) as being the estimated amount
due from the Lessee in respect of the period specified in the notice requiring
payment on account which shall not exceed twelve months and shall not overlap the
period in respect of which any previous notice has been served.
Clause 3(b) - To pay and discharge all rates taxes assessments and outgoings and
impositions whatsoever (whether parliamentary or otherwise) which are now or may
at any time hereafter during the term be assessed charged or imposed upon the
demised premises or upon the owner or occupier thereof.
To continue reading
Request your trial