LVT/0035/12/21: Woodland Chalet Park, Haverfordwest
| Judgement Number | LVT/0035/12/21 |
| Year | 2022 |
| Date | 11 January 2023 |
| Court | Leasehold Valuation Tribunals |
| Subject Matter | Section 27A and 20C |
| Applied Rules | Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 |
Page 1 of 17
Y TRIBIWNLYS EIDDO PRESWYL
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL
LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL
Reference: LVT/0035/12/21
In the Matter of The Woodlands Chalets Owners Association,
In the matter of an Application under Section 27A and 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
.
Applicant: (1) The Woodlands Chalet Owners Association
(2) Colin and Joanne Marsh
(2) Mrs J Lane
(4) Mr G Morris
(5) Mr and Mrs E Coles
(6) Mr M Simcoe and Mr M Tew
(7) Mrs C Miles, Mrs B Morgan and Mrs M Allison.
Respondent: Multispan (Cardiff) Limited
Tribunal:
Tribunal Judge Richard Payne Legal member.
Mr Hefin Lewis FRICS Surveyor member.
Mrs Juliet Playfair Lay member.
Hearing date: 11th August 2022.
Upon hearing Mr Richard Mynott for the Applicant and Ms Robyn Cunningham, Counsel,
instructed by Darwin Gray solicitors, for the Respondent.
DECISION
BACKGROUND
1. The Woodlands was originally developed by the late Mrs Gill Worrell and her late husband
Glyn Worrell in 1971, the mother and step-father of the current directors of the
Respondent company, siblings Mrs Lindsey Conn and Mr Nick Mabbitt. The site is said to
be 6.2 acres in area, around two acres of this being woodland. There are 54 chalets on site
which are all two bedroomed and semi-detached, sold originally on 99-year leases in 1971.
Many of the freeholds of the chalets have been sold so that there now remain 19 leasehold
chalets.
Page 2 of 17
2. The application is made by the Woodlands Chalets Owners Association (WCOA or “the
Association”) and various leaseholders/qualifying tenants who are members of the
Association. The Applicants contend that the application to the tribunal is necessary
because previous attempts to engage the Respondent landlord company as to how the
service charges have been made up and determined, have either resulted in no response
or an inadequate response. The application was dated 4 December 2021 and sought a
determination as to the payability and reasonableness of service charges for the years 2018
– 19, 2019 – 20 and 2020 – 21.
INSPECTION
3. On 10th August 2022 the tribunal judge and surveyor inspected the site in the presence of
Mr Richard Mynott and Mrs Cheryl Quick of the Applicants, and Mrs Lindsey Conn and Mr
Nick Mabbitt of the Respondent company. It was a hot, clear summer day.
4. The Tribunal members noted that the site was well presented and attractively laid out,
largely to closely cut lawns and grassed banks, with many attractive mature trees in
evidence.
5. The correct use of the refuse/waste disposal area appeared not to be properly observed.
The bin was overflowing with incorrect disposal of refuse bags.
6. The tribunal noted the wooded area behind some of the chalets on the site which is not
used as part of the leisure amenity of the site. The woodland appeared to be used for
disposing of garden waste and grass cuttings.
THE HEARING
7. The tribunal was grateful to the parties who, in preparing for the final hearing and in
compliance with earlier directions orders made by the tribunal, had prepared a
comprehensive hearing bundle that comprised 331 numbered pages which included
witness statements, evidence and a distillation of the issues in the form of Scott schedules
and replies to the same, upon which the parties wished to rely. The bundle and the parties’
approach to it was of considerable assistance in narrowing down the issues that remained
at the final hearing. In this decision, where reference is made to a document within the
hearing bundle, this will be indicated by the page number in the bundle contained within
square brackets [….]. The tribunal was also grateful to Ms Cunningham for the skeleton
argument she provided on behalf of the Respondent company.
8. Mr Mynott, the treasurer of the Association, said that there had been an increase in costs
during the late spring and early summer of 2020 which did not correspond to any
exceptional work being undertaken and several individuals had approached the
Respondent about this. He set out some historical events that led to the formation of the
Association in late August/early September 2020 and whilst there is no need for the
tribunal to repeat all that information, suffice to say that relations between certain
leaseholders and the Association on the one hand, and with Mrs Conn and Mr Mabbitt of
the Respondent company upon the other, were poor. The leaseholders and Association
To continue reading
Request your trial