9 Sutcliffe house, London Road, Bath BA1 6AJ CHI/00HA/LSC/2023/0020
DECISION
[1]The Lease granted to and held by the Applicant dated 31 August 2012 for a term of 999 years at an annual rent of £60, provides that the Lessee should pay a service charge that constitutes a ‘Fair Proportion’ of the Lessor’s costs expenses and outgoings.[2]Under section 27A (3)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the Tribunal determines that the amount payable as a ‘Fair Proportion’ for the Applicant to pay of the sum for works for ‘internal repairs and redecorations to include damp and fireproofing works’ undertaken in the financial year 2021/22, is zero (0%) and not £10,565,44. It further determines as a consequence that the amount payable by the Applicant for the calendar year 2021/22 is the sum of £3,369.07.[3]The amount payable for the service charge in 2022/23 is a ‘Fair Proportion’ of the Lessor’s costs and expenses and outgoings. It is for the Respondent to decide what a reasonable proportion should be.[4]The Applicant is not obliged to make any contribution at all to any major works to the interior entrances, passages, landings and staircases in Sutcliffe House because he only has to do so if they are so enjoyed or used by the lessees in common.[5]The Notice of Intention served by the Respondent on 13 February 2019 under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant 1985 is deficient in relation to the works subsequently undertaken since the notice did not include in the works to be undertaken the damp and fireproofing works.[6]The Tribunal grants dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the application by the Respondent but subject to the following conditions:[1]The Respondent shall refund to the Applicant the fee paid in respect of his Application.[2]The Respondent shall meet the reasonable legal costs of the Applicant in obtaining advice on his Application.[3]The Respondent is not to charge any interest or penalty in respect of the late payment now due of £3,369.07 (especially since the Applicants remittances in respect of payments he considered due were returned by the Respondent). This condition is to include no charge being made or interest incurred through referring the matter to a debt collection agency.[7]The Tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act in favour of the Applicant that any costs incurred by the Respondent in connection with these proceedings are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of the service charge payable by the Applicant.[8]The Tribunal also makes an order in favour of the Applicant under Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the 2022 Act extinguishing any liability to pay a particular administration charge in relation to the litigation costs of the Respondent in this case.