Author Topic: Leasehold woes  (Read 6319 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Landlady

  • Fool Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2896
  • Reputation: 0
Re: Leasehold woes
« Reply #75 on: November 13, 2013, 04:24:52 PM »

Online Nick

  • Needs to get out more...
  • ******
  • Posts: 109306
  • Reputation: -115
Re: Leasehold woes
« Reply #76 on: September 17, 2014, 03:43:42 PM »
Meeting tonight  ::)  Freeholder is trying to claim two years previously unbilled charges. Law says she cannot do this. Game on  eveilgrin:
Warning: May contain Skub
Cat sitter extraordinaire
Semi-professional crocodile

Offline Miss Adventure

  • Wet behind the ears
  • **
  • Posts: 585
  • Reputation: 0
Re: Leasehold woes
« Reply #77 on: September 17, 2014, 04:03:16 PM »
Meeting tonight  ::)  Freeholder is trying to claim two years previously unbilled charges. Law says she cannot do this. Game on  eveilgrin:

LAT clause 20b states 18 months, however the normal Limitation act for a contract debt is 6 years. Either way, you know that you have to pay something towards the running of a building.... Don't you?

Online Nick

  • Needs to get out more...
  • ******
  • Posts: 109306
  • Reputation: -115
Re: Leasehold woes
« Reply #78 on: September 17, 2014, 04:05:54 PM »
Under Section 20b of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the leaseholder is protected from being asked to pay towards costs incurred more than 18 months ago.

Normally the lease will provide for the service charge to be demanded in advance, but occasions will arise when the demands are issued after completion of the works or provision of the service. In these cases a statutory time limit applies: the landlord must issue the demand within 18 months of his incurring the cost.

If the demand is provided later than this, the landlord cannot recover the costs at all, unless a notice is served during the 18 months stating that costs have been incurred and that the tenant will be required to contribute to them by payment of a service charge.

The idea behind this policy was stated by Mr. Justice Etherton in the High Court case in 2003 of Gilje v. Charlgrove Securities Limited, “...so far as discernible, the policy behind Section 20B of the Act is that the tenant should not be faced with a bill for expenditure, of which he or she was not sufficiently warned to set aside provision. It is not directed at preventing the lessor from recovering any expenditure on matters, and to the extent, of which there was adequate prior notice”.

 whistle:
Warning: May contain Skub
Cat sitter extraordinaire
Semi-professional crocodile