Section 20 (Landlord and Tenants Act 1985) Notification

sophiec83

Hi all,

I was hoping to get some advice on behalf of my mother.

My mother owns a flat in a block owned by her landlord who has recently had some major works carried out, costing £26,000. In my mother's lease it states she is liable to pay 25% of any works undertaken to the building by the landlord/his contractors. However, from what I have read, he should have served her a Section 20 notice before even starting the work. She was not even consulted. Because she does not live at the property (rents it out) she did not know the work was taking place, she was not given an opportunity to comment on what work was being done or shown any quotes for the cost of the work.
She has just received a bill of £6,500 from the landlord along with a letter threatening legal action if she does not pay within 21 days. Before going down the route of paying a solicitor for legal advice, does anyone here have any experience of this sort of thing? Do you know if my understanding that she should have been consulted under Section 20 is correct? It seems as though because he did not follow correct procedure, she is not liable to pay any more than £250. Any advice greatly appreciated.

propertyman

Ok its the 1985 Act and there is guidance here on the process.
http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=19

The law, amended many times has put a cap on such qualifying works of £250 where the fail to consult.

However two recent cases Daejan and Phillips v Francis ha ve rather diluted that protection in that

1: a landlord that fails to consult can apply to the tribunal ( formerly the LVT) for dispensation

2: the tenant can apply to determine that the amount should not be paid or paid in part

The good news is that your legal and professional costs of arguing this can now be added into your claim against the landllord.

Moreover sending you a bill can
1 only be done as and when the lease says one off bills are rarely allowable
2 require statutory information to be sent with it failiing to do so means you can write and say I am witholding it.
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?47824-Service-Charge-Bills-“Do-I-have-to-pay-it-“and-“-Is-it-valid-”

If the bill do not come with a summary of rights explaining your right to go to the tribunal it isnt valid and you can say I am witholding.

tim123456789

Does she know if the other LHs received a S20?

IIRC there is some loophole here if an individual gets missed out.

Having received a S20 (and the associated quotes) a tenant has no rights to veto the works so it could easily have gone ahead (using the "best" quote) even if she didn't agree.

OTHO if no-one received a S20 then she is basically correct - she doesn't have to pay.

expect a long slog here

tim

sophiec83

Thanks propertyman and tim.

She did not receive a summary of rights with the bill, just a summary of the work and costs involved. Also there is nothing in her lease stating that one off bills are allowable.

I don't think the other tenants received an s20 as I spoke to the landlord myself querying this and he said he had done the "right thing to honour his obligations under the lease that was agreed. I did my bit and cannot have any guilty conscience about that." So he seems to think he's done what he needs to do according to lease and that he wasn't required to do anything else

propertyman

Then your repsonse to the landlord is

" While the lease requires you to do various things including the repairs you have billed for*, the recovery of your expenditure and billing of the costs is also subject to statutory control
- that any contribution over £250 by any one flat must be preceded by consultation
- any billing must be accompanied by the summary of rights and the statutory information on the name and address of the landlord
-and under the lease can only be demanded in the timing and manner set out, not one offs.

Therefore we are
1 Not requried to make any contribution as the amount was not biiled as the lease sets out
2 that we exercise our right to withold as you have not sent the bill with the summary of rights and the statutory information on the name and address of the landlord
3 even after addressing these points we are still limited to a contribution of £250 as you did not consult".

You can add the various documents I linked to and the pamphlet of section 20, and on the lease site the summary of rights and further info is there.

You might like to send that to your neighbours as joint action to resolve this is better than going it alone.


* Lets assume that the work he did was under the lease is his to do

Hope that helps

propertyman

My concern here Sophie is "what happens next".

The landlord is not going to write off £26000 and he is more likely to take two routes
-sort it by dint of personality ( threats begging etc ) and I'll sue you!!!
-take legal advice

Now prior to Daejan and Phillips I would have confidently advised you to reply on the £250 Cap, while secretly fearing that what would one day happen and as in daejan did happen, that the Tribunal ( or the Supreme Court in this case albeit narrowly) would base the decision on

" well he did the work, you benefit from it so how much did no consultation actually hurt you?".

I suspect, particularly if you act as group, are better off appointing say a chartered surveyor familiar with Tribunal work and mediation to assess the work done, its quality and the leases, and try and negotiate an agreement via say mediation.

The RICS will help with a list of names as will LEASE

If he gets advice and decides to take his chances at the Tribunal, mediation is the best route to try first as it is the easiest and least stressful, and the T will ask " why you both haven't tried Mediation?".

I would avoid using a solcitor as they are unlikely to be familiar with this and instead take Counsels advice direct.

How he decides to react will depend on the draft letter above- be assured its not going away.

Vitally if you take the intitaitive it broadly insulates you against his costs as if he takes the legal route under the lease then his costs are assured.

propertyman

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0057_Judgment.pdf

This the Daejan Decision

sophiec83

Thank you again, that really is very helpful. I'm going to draft a letter and see what results from that, then we will have a clearer idea of how to proceed after that.
On speaking to other leaseholders I have been advised that they were not consulted in writing as such, but did have meetings with the landlord where the work was discussed. So they were involved and have willingly paid their share of the costs - I don't know if this would have any bearing on the end result? So he has already received £19,500 from the other leaseholders and is seeking the remainder from my mother.
In all honesty, the landlord is my mother's ex husband and I feel that explains in part why she has been treated differently to other leaseholders

propertyman

If the landlord had sought dispensation then having had meetings would go in his favour and weaken the case of a leaseholder seeking their contribution to be capped. There are however key rights that are included which may not have been offered such as discussing the scope of the works and the right to nominate a contractor.

Assuming that your mother is capable of having attending those meetings but has been deliberately excluded eg not invited or notified would greatly strengthen her case. The LL would then have deliberately gone out of his way not to consult in any shape or form.

The draft as suggested would go some way to ensure, irrespective of the outcome, that the LL learns that he has to follow certain procedures, which is to everyone's benefit, inculding his, as next time the natives might not be so agreeable

Good luck

sophiec83

I can't tell you how grateful I am for your help.

My mum would definitely have attended (and is capable to doing so) any meetings had she been invited - she is looking to sell the flat so is obviously very keen to be involved in any decisions made about the building as a whole.

As you say, whatever the outcome, at least he will know that he has certain responsibilities to follow certain procedures. After all, if he didn't, there's nothing to stop him doing whatever work he wants and producing a huge bill at the end of it without having warned anyone in advance!