OM Ltd v New River Head RTM Company Ltd [2010] UKUT 394 (LC)

IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF THE LEASEHOLD VALUATION
UT Neutral citation number: [2010] UKUT 394 (LC)Venue TRIBUNAL ON AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 94 OF THE, COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 2002, BETWEEN OM LIMITED Appellant/Respondent, and, NEW RIVER HEAD RTM COMPANY LTD Respondent/, Appellant, Re: Flats at New River Head,, 173 Rosebery Avenue,, London, EC1R 4UJ, Before: His Honour Judge Mole QC, Sitting at 43-45 Bedford Square, London, WC1, on Wednesday 25 th August 2010, Mr Adrian Carr of Counsel appeared for the Appellant/Respondent, Mr John Hawkesley appeared for the Respondent/Appellant, The following case is referred to in this decision:, Re Barrington Court, Colney Hatch Lane LON/00AP/LIS/2006/0091, DECISION, Introduction
Between
OM LtdNew River Head RTM Company Ltd
[1]This matter concerns a building containing 129 individual flats, collectively known as New River Head, which were converted from the former headquarters of the Thames Water Board. All of the flats are held on long leases with the terms of 999 years commencing on the first of February 1996. The leases named OM Ltd (then called Peverel OM Ltd) as the management company of the premises. Neither Peverel OM Ltd nor OM Ltd have or had any legal or beneficial interest in the property; their only function was to manage the premises. In 2004 the tenants, or some of them, set up the New River Head RTM Company Ltd, A ‘Right To Manage’ company under the provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, in order to take over the management of the premises. This company acquired the right to manage the premises on the 1st of October 2004 which is, therefore, “the acquisition date”. Before that date OM sent the RTM company a cheque for £100,000 on account of accrued uncommitted service charges and then on the 31st of January 2005 sent a letter enclosing a “Closing Statement of Account” and a cheque for £ 54,390.87p in respect of the balance of the accrued uncommitted service charges.[2]After the acquisition of the right to manage, some of the tenants made an application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal against OM Ltd, under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The application asked for a determination whether service charges collected by OM Ltd in the years from 1998 until the acquisition were properly payable. In a decision dated the 30th of March 2006 the LVT found in favour of the tenants to the extent of £59,267.13. It was unable to deal with that part of the claim that related to gas charges. That claim was renewed and when the LVT again determined that it was unable to deal with it, there was an appeal to the Lands Tribunal. In its decision of the 1 st May 2008 The Lands Tribunal found in favour of the tenants and disallowed £39,368.77 in respect of those gas charges. This amounted to a total of £98,635.90. To that figure other sums, which were conceded by OM Ltd in either correspondence or at the LVT hearing, were added, bringing the grand total to £121,742.39.[3]In November 2008 the RTM company brought an application against OM under section 94 (3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to determine the amount of the payment that fell to be made to the RTM company under the section. The RTM company argued that the whole of the £121,742.39 was to be interpreted as an ‘accrued uncommitted service charge’ within the meaning of section 94. The RTM company also claimed interest on that sum. After a hearing on 5 th February 2009, the LVT found in favour of the RTM company in a decision dated 16 th May 2009 and, after some adjustments, ruled that the amount of accrued uncommitted service charges was £122,192.39. The LVT also awarded interest at 4% per annum compound from the first of October 2004 until payment. Both parties have appealed and the appeals have been consolidated.[4]OM appeals for a determination whether the sum of £ 121,742.39 is an accrued uncommitted service charge and, if so whether OM is obliged to pay the RTM company the whole of that sum, given that only 35 out of 129 tenants were applicants in the proceedings. Secondly, whether the LVT has a general power to award interest on an accrued uncommitted service charge.[5]The RTM company appeals for a determination first whether OM is obliged to pay it the amount of service charges which it did not collect from tenants prior to the acquisition date. Secondly, where during its period of management OM paid a bill using funds held in the service charge fund although some of the tenants had not paid their service charges, whether the money used to settle that proportion of the bill which benefited those tenants who had not paid their charges is recoverable as an accrued uncommitted service charge from OM.[6]The first issue raised by OM and the issues raised by the RTM Company turn upon the proper interpretation of section 94 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. This provision is in a section of the act that deals with the establishment and powers of a body known as a ‘Right To Manage’, or RTM company. It provides for payment to the RTM company of a sum equal to the amount of any ‘accrued uncommitted service charges’ held by a person who is a manager or a landlord on the acquisition date.[7]The LVT granted permission to appeal to this Tribunal on this issue. Both the RTM company and OM Ltd have appealed. The second issue, raised by OM, upon which leave was granted by the President on the 14th of September 2009, is whether the LVT had the power to award interest to represent income that could have accrued on the investment of accrued uncommitted service charges.[8]The LVT set out its reasons thus – “11. The main issue is whether it is appropriate for this Tribunal to make an Order, under section 94, in respect of the £121,742. 39 referred to .... 12. The Tribunal has reached the firm view that it is appropriate for such Order to be made. 13. Mr Carr, on behalf of the Respondent, made a number of submissions to the contrary, including:-(i) That an Order under Section 94 can only apply to money which is in the trust fund on the acquisition date. Mr Carr referred to the words “held by him” in the last part of Section 94 (1) and submitted that only the amount (if any) which was in credit in the fund, on the date of acquisition, could be the subject of an Order under Section 94. [Mr Carr did not shrink-or flinch-from the corollary is that if money was stolen from the fund-even by a trustee-then only any amount remaining in credit could be the subject of an Order under Section 94. We consider that such a construction cannot have been the intention of Parliament.](ii) That when the (previous) Tribunals decided that the amounts totalling £100,642.21 were not payable, they ceased to be “service charges” and, therefore, section 4 did not apply. [We consider that this submission is contrary to the wording of Section 94 (2)(a) in that the amounts were, in our view, paid “by way of service charges”. We also consider that it cannot have been the intention of Parliament to allow a party which has been paid money by way of service charges to retain that money if a Tribunal decides it was not payable.](iii) That the tenants who had made the "overpayments" would be able to reclaim them from the payee. [We consider that such a system would be unworkable in practice-especially as a number of the tenants will have changed since 1 October 2004. This submission also fails to take into account the likelihood that previous tenants who have assigned their tenancies will have made arrangements in the transfer deeds in respect of service charges. We consider that such a system is likely to result in the payee benefiting from an unjustified "windfall" which would be better applied to the credit of the RTM' s service charge account for the premises. Although it does not apply in this case, one can easily imagine devices by which managers who were in similar positions to the Respondent could reduce assets to avoid payment to a RTM. Further, such a system would be likely, in our view, to lead to am necessary duplication of proceedings in the Tribunals and the Courts, with the concomitant extra costs, possibility of conflicting decisions and inevitable delay. In addition, this submission contradicts the Respondent’s (successful) submission on other issues to the effect that services provided to tenants who do not pay their service charges are, nevertheless, the deductible under the last part of Section 94(2).]”[9]The LVT then went on to consider the decision of another LVT in the case of Barrington Court LON/00AP/LIS/2006/0091, dated 22 November 2006 in which a contrary view was taken. Several paragraphs of the Barrington Court decision were quoted, of which the following seem most helpful. “50. Mr Joss's essential argument was as follows...:
“it is submitted that amounts paid as a service charge which is subsequently found not to be recoverable should be treated in exactly the same way as any other amounts of advance or interim service charge paid to a landlord which is subsequently found to have been overpaid and really payable to lessees ie under the annual accounting provisions in a lease....” 51. Persuasive though this argument appeared, the Tribunal prefers Mr Gallaher's opposing position … “if it is correct (as the Applicants contend) that any overpayments (resultant upon the Tribunal disallowing sums that have been charged and paid) are recoverable by the lessees [or former lessees who made the overpayment] - that is a compelling reason why the sums should not be paid over to the RTM Company - on what basis does the RTM company operate as a trustee or collection agent for the current and former leaseholders? Similarly, if the payments were (when paid and prior to being declared not properly due and payable) not in fact recoverable, that does not convert the payments into “uncommitted service charges”, rather it would convert these sums from being service charges at all. If there have been overpayments then, subject to equitable defences, the remedy is for the overpaying party to seek restitution (in the Civil Courts), not for the RT M company by an ingenious, though it is submitted, wrong argument to stake a claim to the overpayments. Rightly or wrongly, Parliament has not given the LVT jurisdiction to entertain restitutionary claims. To use section 94 as the basis to garner such jurisdiction by a side wind (at best) cannot reflect Of Parliament’s intention.”
It is of note that the Tribunal in Barrington gave no reasons for its preference and describes the contrary view as persuasive. On the other hand, we have given reasons for our view and we regard the contrary view as wrong in law and unworkable in practice.”[10]The LVT dealt with the issue of interest in paragraph 20 of its decision. It said – “The Respondent submits that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award interest. However, we consider that Section 94 (2) (b) should be construed to allow the award of interest in the circumstances of this case.”[11]The LVT considered that the fairest solution was to award interest at 4% per annum compound from the first of October 2004 until payment. Submission s[12]Mr Carr’s primary submission on behalf of OM Ltd was that the obligation of a manager such as OM Ltd, a “party to.. a lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant..” was clearly defined in section 94(1) and (2). The obligation was to make to the RTM “a payment equal to the amount of any accrued uncommitted service charges held by him on the acquisition date.” He emphasised the words ‘held by him’. Those words were plain. The intention of the section was easily understandable and the sum in question was readily calculable. Section 94(2) defined ‘accrued uncommitted service charges’ as any sums “which have been paid by way of service charges” and any investments which represent such sums “and any income which has accrued on them”. Each element is easily ascertained because it refers to what the party actually holds as a result of having been paid money by way of service charges. Parliament intended a simple transaction whereby the old manager or landlord hands over to the new RTM all the money actually held by way of service charges paid. Mr Carr submitted that the only objects a RTM company may legitimately pursue are the acquisition of the right to manage the premises and then the exercise of that right. The RTM company has no standing to pursue an ex-manager for payment of a sum disallowed as a service charge following an application under section 27A by certain tenants. It is impossible to spell out of the section an intention by Parliament to give the RTM the right to step into the shoes of the tenants and recover such sums. The reasons given by the LVT do not stand up to examination.[13]The LVT has no power to award interest as such. If in fact interest has been earned on service charges held by the party then it is payable by virtue of section 94 (2) (b) as ‘any income which has accrued’ on those charges but it is impossible to spell out of that provision a Parliamentary intention to give the LVT the power to award interest on accrued uncommitted service charges, even where it is not actually income that has accrued. Furthermore, said Mr Carr, the LVT has no inherent jurisdiction to award interest. Even in the higher courts the award of interest is subject to statute (see County Court Act 1984, section 69 and Senior Courts Act 1981, section 35A.)[14]Mr Hawksley argued on behalf of the RTM company that the intention of section 94 was to pass guardianship of the funds that the management company had received from tenants in excess of those tenants' share of allowable costs, and which were therefore unavailable for the future management of the building, to the RTM company. He said the dispute was as to the amount of such payments which were actually required to meet costs incurred before the acquisition date in connection with matters for which the service charges were payable. He criticises the finding of the LVT that OM were entitled to deduct 100% of those costs notwithstanding that not all the tenants had paid their share of such costs. He argues that costs can only be deducted from the service charges to the extent that tenants had paid service charges for their share of such costs. This point arises out of sums that tenants had not paid but which the RTM nonetheless collected from those tenants in the mistaken belief that they were acting as the agent of OM. Mr Hawksley said:
“In the course of these proceedings OM stated that they have not appointed the RTM company as their agent. The RTM company has no right to collect this amount other than as the agent of OM. Accordingly the RTM company cannot agree to these costs being deducted from the AUCS and requires the full amount of the AUCS to be paid so that it can pay the arrears back to the tenants. Obviously this would not be necessary if OM did appoint the RTM company as its agent.”
[15]If OM wish to recover a cost or proportion of a cost for which they have not received a service charge payment then they must themselves collect it from the tenants in question and not help themselves from the service charge payment of other tenants. The right to collect service charges for costs incurred before the acquisition date is not transferred to the RTM company, see section 97 (5). The Law[16]Section 94 provides:(1) Where the right to manage premises is to be acquired by a RTM company, a person who is – (a) the landlord under a lease of the whole or any part of the premises, (b) party to such a lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, or (c) .... must make to the company a payment equal to the amount of any accrued uncommitted service charges held by him on the acquisition date(2) The amount of any accrued uncommitted service charges is the aggregate of – (a) any sums which have been paid to the person by way of service charges in respect of the premises, and (b) any investments which represents such sums (and any income which has accrued on them), less so much (if any) of that amount as is required to meet the costs incurred before the acquisition date in connection with the matters for which the service charges were payable.(3) He or the RTM company may make an application to a leasehold valuation tribunal to determine the amount of any payment which falls to be made under this section.(4) The duty imposed by this section must be complied with on the acquisition date or as soon after that date as is reasonably practicable.[17]Section 96 provides for the transfer of management functions under leases to the RTM. The RTM steps into the shoes of the landlord or the manager in relation to management functions. Management functions are functions with respect to services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and management but do not include certain functions, for example functions relating to re-entry or forfeiture, specified under section 96 (6). Section 97 makes various supplementary provisions. Subsections (4) and (5) provide that:
“(4) So far as any function of a tenant under a lease of the whole or any part of the premises – (a) relates to the exercise of any function under the lease which is a function of the RTM company by virtue of section 96, and (b) is exercisable in relation to a person who is landlord under the lease or party to the lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, it is instead exercisable in relation to the RTM company. (5) But subsection (4) does not require or permit the payment to the RTM company of so much of any service charges payable by a tenant under a lease of the whole or any part of the premises as is required to meet costs incurred before the right to manage was acquired by the RTM company in connection with matters for which the service charges are payable.”
[18]The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, section 42 (2) says:
“ any sums paid to the payee by the contributing tenants by way of relevant service charges, and any investments representing those sums, shall (together with any income accruing thereon) be held by the payee either as a single fund or, if he thinks fit, in two or more separate funds.”
[19]Subsection (3) requires the payee to hold any trust fund on trust to defray costs incurred in connection with the matters for which the service charges were payable and then on trust for the contributing tenants. Conclusion[20]In my judgment the sum of £121,742.39 is not an amount of accrued uncommitted service charges held by OM Ltd on the acquisition date.[21]The intention of the section is that the relevant person is obliged to hand over to the RTM company whatever he holds on the acquisition date, meaning whatever is either in one or more bank accounts set up by that person or in any investment which represents such sums, as contemplated by section 94 (2)(b).[22]The purpose of the legislation seems to me to be strictly limited. Its words suggest an intention to achieve the transfer to the RTM of those assets and powers that need to be transferred to the RTM for it to be an effective management company from the date of acquisition, leaving alone existing rights and relationships before the date of acquisition. I cannot spell out from the words of the act an intention to make substantial changes to the rights and powers of an RTM management company in relation to tenants, as compared with the rights and powers of any other landlord or management company in relation to tenants. Hence section 97(5) makes it plain that the payment of service charges to the RTM in respect of costs incurred before the date of acquisition is neither required nor permitted by subsection (4). If the act had intended to provide remedies where none had existed before it could and should have said so. But I am sure that was not its intention.[23]The words of section 94 (1) are deliberately limited. The payment of accrued uncommitted service charges is confined to those accrued uncommitted service charges ‘held by’ the landlord or manager on the acquisition date. The natural meaning of those words is that what has to be paid is what the landlord or manager has actually got; not what he was entitled to have but failed to get or had at one stage but does not have now. Quite how broadly “held-by-him” should be interpreted in any particular case will depend upon the facts of that case. In dealing with an argument that appears to have troubled the LVT, I would have little hesitation in deciding that such charges were “held by him” within the section in a case where a manager had for his own reasons, dishonest or not, decided to put the service charges in cash in a box under his bed. That will be a matter for the LVT to determine under section 94 (3). Nor am I concerned that, as the LVT said, “one can easily imagine devices by which managers who were in similar positions to the respondent could reduce assets to avoid payment to a RTM.” Managers could lawfully and properly reduce the payment by making sure they used the accrued service charges to make sure they had paid their suppliers what they owed them by the acquisition date. There would be nothing wrong with that. Apart from that, it is difficult to see how managers could lawfully and honestly, bearing in mind their position as trustees, reduce the payment. Indeed it is difficult to see why a rational and honest manager would wish to do so.[24]The sums must have been paid “ by way of service charges”. Those underlined words, to my mind, are there to make it plain that there is to be no argument so far as the payment is concerned about whether or not the charges are in fact justifiable and reasonable service charges; if they were paid ‘by way of service charges’ they are service charges for the purpose of section 94.[25]They also have to be uncommitted service charges, so if they have been paid or committed to a particular management debt or function they do not fall within section 94.[26]Such a simple and limited objective, which does not seek to introduce new procedures or rights, seems to me to be eminently workable.[27]I do not find Mr Hawksley’s arguments persuasive, well argued though they were. If a manager is committed to pay a suppliers bill for services rendered, he is not merely obliged to pay the proportion of the bill that equates to the proportion of service charges that he has actually received, he has to pay the whole bill. If he holds enough money by way of accrued service charges to pay the whole bill, he is entitled to pay the whole bill out of that fund. If he knows he will have a bill to pay he is entitled to hold enough to pay it as money representing committed accrued service charges. If there still remains an accrued uncommitted balance held by him at the acquisition date, that is the money that must be paid to the RTM. If the former management company or landlord does not hold enough money to pay bills incurred before the acquisition date, it or he may sue the tenant for the relevant unpaid service charge. The RTM company may not do so. (See section 97 (5)). As the payment to the RTM company of service charges in respect of costs incurred before the acquisition date is expressly ruled out by the statute, it is highly unlikely that Parliament can have intended that repayment of service charges in respect of costs incurred before the acquisition date should be made to the RTM company .[28]The relationship of the management company and the tenants and the rights that have arisen between them up to the acquisition date, are preserved. If a tenant succeeds in demonstrating to the County Court or the LVT that service charges paid or demanded are unreasonable, he will recover his payment for himself or successfully resist a claim against him for any payment. The Act gives the RTM company no power, still less a right, to take over a tenant's claim or take over the defence of a claim properly made against a tenant. That does not involve the duplication of proceedings; it keeps things as they are.[29]Given my conclusion on the first issue, the second issue, whether the LVT has the right to award interest, becomes somewhat academic. However, in my judgment it is impossible to spell a power for the LVT to award interest out of the words of section 94(2)(b). On the contrary, the words in that provision “any investments which represent” sums paid by way of service charges “and any income which has accrued on them” make it plain to my mind that Parliament only intended interest that has actually accrued on such investments to be transferred to the RTM company. Nor, in the absence of any specific statutory power to do so, does the LVT have an inherent power to award interest.[30]The appeal of OM Ltd therefore succeeds, the appeal of New River Head RTM Company Ltd fails, and the decision of the LVT on the application under section 94 (3) must be quashed. Dated 28 th October 2010 His Honour Judge David Mole QC, Member of the Upper Tribunal

Cited in 7 later judgments