First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) judgments from 2018

200 judgments from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in 2018, page 1 of 2.

McQue & Anor v Taurusbuild Ltd & Ors (Easements and profits a prendre : Construction of implied grant)[2018] UKFTT 0314 (PC) · 2018 · cited 1 time
(1) Dawn Karina May (2) Richard Andrew Jurga v (1) Anthony James Iles (2) Deborah Louise Iles (Boundary dispute : Inferences to be drawn from surrounding circumstances)[2018] UKFTT 575 (PC) · 2018 · cited 1 time
62 Fallowfield Road, Solihull, West Midlands B92 9HG: BIR/00CT/F77/2018/0038BIR/00CT/F77/2018/0038 · 2018
21 Thornton Road, Shirley, Solihull, West Midlands B90 4TF: BIR/00CT/F77/2018/0041BIR/00CT/F77/2018/0041 · 2018
Danielle Court 23 Manor Road Solihull B91 2BHBIR/00CT/LDC/2018/0009 · 2018
8 Blythewood Close, Solihull, West Midlands, B91 3HLBIR/00CT/MNR/2018/0054 · 2018
153 Dovehouse Lane Solihull B91 2ERBIR/00CT/MNR/2018/0063 · 2018
205 Trysull Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 7JPBIR/00CW/F77/2018/0035 · 2018
27 Vaughan Road, Willenhall, West Midlands, WV13 3TJBIR/00CW/MNR/2018/0050 · 2018
Basilica, Albion Street, Leeds LS1 6LZBIR/00DA/LDC/2019/0003 · 2018
39 Drewry Lane, Derby, DE22 3QSBIR/00FK/HMK/2018/0005 · 2018
20 Evesham Road, Leicester, LE3 2BDBIR/00FN/HSV/2018/0001 · 2018
Flat 13, 71 Osborne Road Leicester LE5 5ETBIR/00FN/MNR/2018/0047 · 2018
Ranksborough Hall Park, Ranksborough Drive, Langham, Oakham, LE15 7JRBIR/00FP/PHK/2018/0004 · 2018
205 North Sherwood Street, Nottingham NG1 4EHBIR/00FY/HMA/2018/0003 · 2018
284 Alfreton Road Nottingham NG7 5LSBIR/00FY/HML/2018/0008 · 2018
30 Ebers Road, Nottingham, NG3 5DZBIR/00FY/HMV/2017/0002 · 2018
546 Berridge Road, Nottingham, NG7 5JUBIR/00FY/HNA/2018/0003 · 2018
Apartment 13 Park West, Derby Road, Nottingham NG7 1LUBIR/00FY/LIS/2017/0044 · 2018
Nos 47, 48, 49, 50 & 52 Downton Court, Hollinswood, Telford, TF3 2BTBIR/00GF/LIS/2018/0033 · 2018
1 Malvern Road, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S40 4DX: BIR/17UD/F77/2018/0032BIR/17UD/F77/2018/0032 · 2018
47 King Street North, Chesterfield, Derbyshire S41 9BA: BIR/17UD/F77/2018/0037BIR/17UD/F77/2018/0037 · 2018
30 Mill Lane, Hilton Derby DE65 5GPBIR/17UK/F77/2018/0034 · 2018
Castlewood Mobile Home Park Hinckley Road Sapcote Leics LE9 4JZBIR/31UB/PHK/2018/0003 · 2018
20 Pinewood Avenue Thurmaston Leicester LE4 8HZBIR/31UC/MNR/2019/0002 · 2018
1a Old Way & Garage Hathern Leicestershire LE12 5HNBIR/31UC/OLR/2017/0068 · 2018
North Carr Crossing Cottage, Misterton, Doncaster, South Yorkshire DN10 4BB: BIR/37UC/F77/2018/0039BIR/37UC/F77/2018/0039 · 2018
5 St Oswalds Park, Dunham on Trent,Notts,NG22 0UBBIR/37UC/PHC/2019/0006 · 2018
27 Park Road, Mansfield Woodhouse, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire NG19 8EF: BIR/37UF/F77/2018/0044BIR/37UF/F77/2018/0044 · 2018
23 Charnwood Grove West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7NTBIR/37UJ/MNR/2019/0005 · 2018
149 Yale House Rivermead Wilford Lane Nottingham NG2 7RHBIR/37UJ/OC9/2018/0002 · 2018
14 Lanehead Walk, Rugeley, Staffordshire, WS15 2XDBIR/41UB/OC6/2018/0008 · 2018
28 Forge Road Rugeley Staffordshire WS15 2JPBIR/41UB/RTB/2018/0010 · 2018
65 Poplar Close Stone Staffordshire ST15 0JBBIR/41UG/HIN/2018/0026 · 2018
Dosthill Hall, Two Gates, off Blackwood Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire B77 1LJBIR/41UK/LIS/2019/0006 · 2018
59 Albert Street, Warwick, Warwickshire, CV34 4JX: BIR/44UF/F77/2019/0012BIR/44UF/F77/2019/0012 · 2018
Flat A 8 Milverton Hill Leamington Spa Warwickshire CV32 5HYBIR/44UF/MNR/2019/0001 · 2018
15 St. Clements Court, Worcester, Worcestershire, WR2 5NW: BIR/47UE/F77/2018/0050BIR/47UE/F77/2018/0050 · 2018
23 Ullswater Close, Worcester, WR4 9HNBIR/47UE/LIS/2018/0006 · 2018
5 Hay Close, Kidderminster DY11 5DHBIR/47UG/OAF/2018/0023 · 2018
49 Fletton Fields, Peterborough PE2 9DWCAM/00JA/HMB/2018/0001 · 2018
40 Dukes Court, The Mall, Dunstable, LU5 4HWCAM/00KC/LBC/2018/0007 · 2018
38 Laburnham Grove, Slough, Berkshire SL3 8QUCAM/00MD/OLR/2018/0129 · 2018
67, 179 & 186 Maplin Park, Slough, SL3 8YB, 8YD & 8XZCAM/00MD/OLR/2018/0158, 159 & 160 · 2018
381 Maplin Park, Slough, SL3 8YFCAM/00MD/OLR/2018/0170 · 2018
Flats 109 and 110 Garner House, Tadros Court, High Wycombe HP13 7GGCAM/11UF/LSC/2017/0051 · 2018
White Gables, The Green, Weston Colville, Cambs CB21 5NY:CAM/12UB/OAF/2018/0009CAM/12UB/OAF/2018/0009 · 2018
3 Pride Lodge, Lion Yard, High Street, Buckden, PE19 5XACAM/12UE/LIS/2018/0021 · 2018
19 Merton Park, High Street, Waterbeach, Cambs CB25 9JXCAM/12UG/PHI/2018/0008 · 2018
Flat 15 Avenue Road, Chadwell Heath, RM6 4JFCAM/22UH/OLR/2018/0163 · 2018
32A Hollybush Lane, Welwyn Garden City, AL7 4JNCAM/22UL/RTB/2018/0009 · 2018
134, London Road, Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire HP3 9APCAM/26UC/F77/2018/0027 · 2018
3 Chantry Road, Bishop’s Stortford, CM23 2SBCAM/26UD/LSC/2018/0055 · 2018
Flats 1-12 The Lodge, Orphanage Rd, Watford WD24 4QZCAM/26UK/LDC/2018/0020 · 2018
8 St Marys Road, Watford WD18 0EFCAM/26UK/LVM/2018/0003 · 2018
27-34 Kilby Road, Stevenage SG1 2LTCAM/26UN/LPC/2018/0002 · 2018
20, The Packway, Wortwell, Harleston, IP20 0HE Appellant : Mrs P PhinnCAM/33UH/RTB/2018/0005 · 2018
12 Foster Road, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 1YNCAM/38UE/OLR/2018/0140 · 2018
8A Milano Avenue, Falcon Park, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich IP5 3RNCAM/42UG/PHC/2018/0004 · 2018
Flat 3 23 Montague Hill Bristol BS2 8NDCHI/00HB/F77/2018/0065 · 2018
27a Cottle Road Bristol, BS14 8QRCHI/00HB/MNR/2018/0062 · 2018
Apartment 2004 The Robinson Building Bristol BS3 4AECHI/00HB/MNR/2018/0069 · 2018
33 Perrymead, Worle, Weston-super –Mare BS22 7FBCHI/00HC/OAF/2018/0009 · 2018
2, Saxby Close, Worle, Weston-super-Mare BS22 7UPCHI/00HC/OAF/2018/0010 · 2018
22, Blackthorn Gardens, Worle, Weston-super –Mare BS22 6RZCHI/00HC/OAF/2018/0011 · 2018
56, Blackthorn Gardens, Worle, Weston-super –Mare BS22 6SACHI/00HC/OAF/2018/0012 · 2018
Kelly Lodge, 7 Walpole Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH1 4HACHI/00HN/LIS/2018/0035 · 2018
17 Malvern Road, Bournemouth, BH9 3AECHI/00HN/LIS/2018/0040 · 2018
Admirals Walk, 30 West Cliff Road, Bournemouth BH2 5HHCHI/00HN/LIS/2018/0066 · 2018
10 Brook Road, Bournemouth, Dorset BH10 5NHCHI/00HN/MNR/2018/0071 · 2018
Betula, Peckons Hill, Shaftesbury, Dorset SP7 0PNCHI/00HY/F77/2018/0061 · 2018
Flat 48, Eaton Manor, The Drive, Hove BN3 3PTCHI/00ML/F77/2018/0063 · 2018
48a Saxon Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 4LFCHI/00ML/LBC/2018/0027 · 2018
1 Croxden Way, Willingdon East Sussex BN22 0HUCHI/00MR/LDC/2018/0047 · 2018
10 North End Avenue, North End,, Portsmouth PO2 9EBCHI/00MR/LDC/2018/0080 · 2018
Forest Park Lodges (Phase 1)CHI/18UK/HTA/2018/0001 · 2018
1 The Potteries, Wickham road, Fareham, Hants PO16 7ETCHI/24UE/F77/2018/0052 · 2018
44 Alison Way, Winchester, Hampshire, SO22 5BTCHI/24UP/LSC/2018/0067 · 2018
Flat 1, 22 Gladstone Road, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 2HZCHI/29UN/MNR/2018/0058 · 2018
21 Artillery Road, Ramsgate, Kent CT11 8PTCHI/29UN/OCE/2018/0031 · 2018
11 Wolsey Grove, Esher, Surrey KT10 8NU Case Reference : CHI/43UB/LAC/2018/0011CHI/43UB/LAC/2018/0011 · 2018
The Old Manor House, Station Road, Thames Ditton, Surrey KT7 0NUCHI/43UB/LDC/2018/0074 · 2018
Gladwyn, The Street East Preston Littlehampton BN16 1HTCHI/45UC/HIN/2018/0020 · 2018
Ladymead Cottage, Albourne Road, Hurstpierpoint, Hassocks, West Sussex BN6 9ESCHI/45UG/F77/2018/0064 · 2018
Ditton Place School, Brantridge Lane, Balcombe, West Sussex RH17 6JRCHI/45UG/LVM/2018/0003 · 2018
(1) 134 Brayards Road, London, SE15 2BU (2) 19 Relf Road, London, SE16 4JS: LON/00BE/HML/2018/0019 & 0023(1) 134 Brayards Road, London, SE15 2BU (2) 19 Relf Road, London, SE16 4JS: LON/00BE/HML/2018/0019 & 0023 · 2018
(1) Sixth Floor Flat, 27 Albion House, Church Street, London, E16 2ND and Pram Shed (2) GFF, 51 Durban Road, London, E15 3BW: LON/00BB/OLR/2018/0206 & 0207 (1) Sixth Floor Flat, 27 Albion House, Church Street, London, E16 2ND and Pram Shed (2) GFF, 51 Durban Road, London, E15 3BW: LON/00BB/OLR/2018/0206 & 0207 · 2018
- (i) Against Marian Podianu a financial penalty of £750 in respect of his asserted failure to comply with the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 (“The 2006 Regulations”). [A297] (ii) Against Mr Dilip a financial penalty of £750 in respect of his asserted failure to comply with the 2006 Regualtions [A307] (iii) Against Swayam Property Services Ltd and Swayam Lets Ltd a financial penalty of £2,500 in respect of their asserted failure to licence a house in multiple occupation [A313 and A319]. (iv) Against Swayam Property Services Ltd and Swayam Lets Ltd a financial penalty of £2,500 in respect of their asserted failure to comply with the 2006 regulations [A325 and A331]. 5. On 7 February 2018 the tribunal received Mr Dilip’s appeal against the single financial penalty imposed on him. A completed application form was subsequently received on 20 March 2018. On 26 February 2018 the tribunal received appeals from Swayam Property Services Ltd and Swayam Lets Ltd against the two financial penalties imposed on them. No appeal has been received from Mr Podianu.20 Dickens Road, London E6 3BY: LON/00BB/HNA/2018/0006 & 0014 · 2018
49 Bristol Road, Forest Gate, London E7 8HG: LON/00BB/HNA/2017/0018 & 1949 Bristol Road, Forest Gate, London E7 8HG: LON/00BB/HNA/2017/0018 & 19 · 2018
Flat 39, 5 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EX: LON/00AH/HNA/2018/0015 & 0016Flat 39, 5 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EX: LON/00AH/HNA/2018/0015 & 0016 · 2018
Flats 5 & 6, 11-13 Camden High Street NW1 7JE: LON/00AG/HMK/2018/0013 & 0015Flats 5 & 6, 11-13 Camden High Street NW1 7JE: LON/00AG/HMK/2018/0013 & 0015 · 2018
494 Goresbrook Road, Dagenham, Essex RM9 4XA: LON/00AB/HIN/2017/0020LON/00AB/HIN/2017/0020 · 2018
50 Farrance Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford, Essex RM6 6EJ: LON/00AB/HMD/2017/0004LON/00AB/HMD/2017/0004 · 2018
The Bull, Rainham Road South, Dagenham, Essex RM10 8AQ: LON/00AB/HPO/2017/0010LON/00AB/HPO/2017/0010 · 2018
6 Verney Gardens, Dagenham, Kent, RM9 5LR: LON/00AB/HPO/2018/0010LON/00AB/HPO/2018/0010 · 2018
2 Oaktree Court, Meadway, Barnet, Hertfordshire EN5 5LF: LON/00AC/OLR/2018/0195 & LON/00AC/OC9/2018/0053LON/00AC/OC9/2018/0053 · 2018
91 Lyttleton Road, London N2 0DD: LON/00AC/OLR/2018/0387LON/00AC/OLR/2018/0387 · 2018
Flat 26 and Garage 30 Barrydene, Oakleigh Road North, Whetstone, London N20 9HG: LON/00AC/OLR/2018/0491LON/00AC/OLR/2018/0491 · 2018
11 Cambrian Green, Snowdon Drive, London NW9 4RH: LON/00AC/OLR/2018/0787LON/00AC/OLR/2018/0787 · 2018
188-192 West Street, Erith, Kent, DA8 1AN: LON/00AD/HMR/2018/0001LON/00AD/HMR/2018/0001 · 2018
76 Whitmore Gardens, London NW10 5HJ: LON/00AE/HMF/2018/0011LON/00AE/HMF/2018/0011 · 2018
1 Edenham Way, W10 5XA: LON/00AE/HMK/2017/0017LON/00AE/HMK/2017/0017 · 2018
First Floor Flat, 123b Rosebank Avenue, Wembley HA0 2TNLON/00AE/OLR/2018/0050 · 2018
part of the first floor of the Building known as 30c Staverton Road … , the floor plans of which are shown edged red on Plan 1 and as described in Schedule 1” Schedule 1 The Property “The part of the first floor of the Building known as 30C Staverton Road … , the floor plans of which are shown edged red on Plan 1 including: (a) the internal plaster, plasterboard and surface finishes of all walls; (b) the whole of any internal, non-load bearing that are entirely within the Property; (c) – (h) … ;and (i) all additions and improvements to the Property (if any)” The Lease Plan 1 is at [50]. It shows the extent of the demised premises edged red and within that edging it shows the internal layout of the flat. Mr Granby accepted that the plan was not a plan ‘for the purposes of illustration only’. Schedule 4 Tenant Covenants Sets out a number of covenants on the part of the tenant to include: “8. Alterations 8.1 Not to make any external or structural alteration or addition to the Property or make any opening in any boundary of the Property or cut or maim any structural parts of the Building. 8.2 Not to make any internal, non-structural alteration or addition to the Property, or alteration to the plan, design or elevation of the Property without the prior written consent of the Landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 8.3 Not to install …” Schedule 5 The Regulations Sets out a number of regulations to be observed and performed by the tenant to include: “17. Not to live in the Property unless all floors (other than the kitchen and bathroom) are covered in good quality carpeting and underlay.” The alterations 18. It was not in dispute that some alterations have been carried out. 19. One alteration was the removal of an internal part-glazed partition which divided what was laid out as a galley kitchen and a room which was used as a living room. The effect of that alteration was to create an open plan living/dining area. That alteration was not mentioned in the respondents’ counter-notice and it was not in issue before the tribunal. 20. The other suite of alterations was the removal of the internal wall dividing the lavatory and the bathroom so as to create a bathroom/wc and an associated relocation of a cupboard containing a boiler or water tank. These alterations were summarised as ‘variation to the bathroom’ in the landlord’s counter-notice. We were invited to infer that use of the expression ‘unauthorised variation’ in that counter-notice should be interpreted as an objection to the ‘new’ lease plan and a counter-proposal that the plan to be annexed to the new lease should be a copy of the existing lease plan. 21. The counter-notice also asserted that the ‘new’ lease plan shows “… extension of the demise to common parts, (the stairway).” Mr Granby said that that position was no longer asserted by the respondents. 22. It was not in dispute that the ‘new’ lease plan at [9] accurately shows the extent of the demised premises edged red and it reasonably accurately shows the internal layout of the flat as it now is. The rival submissions The terms of acquisition in dispute - the lease plan and jurisdiction 23. S48 of the Act makes provisions for an application to the tribunal where, after a certain period of time, ‘any of the terms of acquisition’ remain in dispute. The expression ‘terms of acquisition’ is defined in s48(7) to mean: “… the terms on which the tenant is to acquire a new lease of his flat, whether they relate to the terms to be contained in the lease or to the premium … payable … or otherwise.” 24. Mr Harrison submitted that the format of the lease plan to be annexed to the new lease was a term of acquisition and that if the format of that plan was in dispute the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine what the format of it should be. In support of that submission Mr Harrison relied upon Greenpine Investment Holding Limited v Howard De Walden Estates and anor [2016] EWHC 1923 (Ch) a decision of Mr Timothy Fancourt QC (as he then was) sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division. The relevant paragraphs are 29 – 37 in which the judge summarises the scheme of the Act and how ‘terms of acquisition in dispute’ are to be identified. With no disrespect to the parties or to Fancourt J (as he now is) our working summary of what is explained is that: 1. The starting point is that the tenant must set out his position in his notice of claim. S42(3)(d) provides that the notice must: “specify the terms which the tenant proposes should be contained in any such [new] lease;”. 2. The next step is the landlord’s counter-notice. In essence s45 requires the counter-notice to identify those terms which are accepted by the landlord and those which are not; and in relation to those which are not accepted what his counter-proposals are. In paragraph 31 of his judgment the judge said: “31. Given that the terms of the new lease are firmly based on the terms of the existing lease, it seems clear that the terms of acquisition that are in dispute are contemplated by the draftsman to arise from the terms of the tenant’s notice and the landlord’s counternotice. That is why section 48(1) refers to any terms of acquisition that remain in dispute 2 months after the counternotice and why the Tribunal is given jurisdiction to determine those matters in dispute …” The judge went on consider that other matters in dispute may arise during the process of the grant of the new lease, but said it was unclear whether those can be ‘terms of acquisition’. Having considered other authorities the judge concluded it makes obvious sense that the terms of acquisition (which are not the same as the exact wording of the new lease) are defined by the notice and counter-notice – against the backdrop of the provisions s57. He held that if not so defined it is difficult to see how all the terms of acquisition are identifiable as such, rather than as issues to be dealt with in the drafting of the new lease, and what (if any) time limit there is on raising further terms of acquisition before the Tribunal has finally determined the matters in dispute. In paragraph 37 the judge made clear that terms of acquisition to be agreed or determined by the tribunal are the proposals contained in the respective notices that remain in dispute at the relevant time. 25. As regards the subject case, Mr Harrison submitted that the format of the lease plan to be annexed to the new lease was raised by the applicants in their notice of claim and it was objected to by the respondents in their counter-notice and that it can be inferred the respondent’s counter-proposal was that the existing lease plan should be annexed to the new lease. In those circumstances he submitted that the format of the lease plan was ‘a term of acquisition in dispute’ which the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine. 26. Mr Granby argued for a wider approach to the meaning of ‘terms of acquisition’ and submitted they should be considered more akin to Heads of Terms (HoTs). In support of that proposition Mr Granby relied upon Bolton v Godwin-Austen & ors [2014] EWCA Civ 27. Mr Granby drew attention to paragraph 9 where McCombe LJ equated ‘terms of acquisition’ with HoTs and that the form of lease is drafted by the landlord to give effect to the terms of acquisition, as either agreed between the parties or determined by a tribunal. Once the ‘terms of acquisition’ are agreed or determined, regulations provide for the landlord to draft the new lease and for the tenant to respond to the details of the draft. Mr Granby equated the lease plan to be annexed a drafting point and not a term of acquisition. 27. We note that the facts of Bolton were different to those in Greenpine as explained by Fancourt J in paragraph 35 of his judgment. In Bolton the landlord set out his counter-proposals in his counter-notice in very general and compendious terms and form, mostly by reference to several sections of the Act. The tenant accepted those counter-proposals and so that they were not ‘terms of acquisition in dispute’. The landlord submitted a draft new lease, the tenant objected to some of the provisions. The issue before the Court was the forum to determine the drafting items in dispute. If the drafting items were ‘terms of acquisition in dispute’, jurisdiction lay with the tribunal. If they were not, jurisdiction lay with the county court. Because the tenant had accepted the counter-proposals (albeit in very general terms) so they were held not to be ‘terms of acquisition in dispute’ and so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the drafting items. The judgment makes it clear that if the tenant had not accepted the counter-proposals they would have been ‘terms of acquisition in dispute’ and jurisdiction would have been vested in the tribunal. 28. In the present case it is quite plain that the lease plan is an integral part of the lease. It is not an illustrative plan and it is not a plan which merely identifies the extent of the demised premises. The original parties to the lease clearly intended it should be a floor plan showing not only the extent of the demised premises but also the internal layout of them. We infer this was intended to set a marker as to the internal lay-out at the commencement of the term which would inform the tenant’s obligations going forward and as a reference point as to any future alterations that might be contemplated. 29. We find that the applicant’s notice of claim clearly proposed that the plan to be annexed to the new lease should reflect reality and the position on the ground as regards to the current internal layout of the flat. The landlord rejected that proposal and (in effect) made a counter-proposal that the plan to be annexed to the new lease should be the same plan as annexed to the existing lease. The applicant did not accept that counter-proposal. In those circumstances we prefer the submissions made by Mr Harrison and supported by Greenpine that the format of the lease plan to be annexed to the new lease was a ‘term of acquisition in dispute’ and that this tribunal had jurisdiction to determine what the format of that plan shall be. The format of the lease plan – construction of the statute 30. S57 of the Act sets out the terms on which the new lease is to be granted. In brief the starting point is that it shall be on the same terms as the existing lease subject to certain provisions. Material to this case is s57(1)(b) and 57(6). As regards s57(1)(b), in paragraph 16 above we have highlighted the issue in contention and that Mr Granby submits that as drafted the section is unclear and might lead to ambiguity such that the word ‘lawful’ should be implied to make it clear what the draftsman had in mind. In support of his argument Mr Granby relied upon a passage from Bennion – paragraphs 764-765 to the effect that where a statute was confiscatory, for example the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, if there is any doubt as to its meaning, it should be construed in favour of the party who is to be dispropriated. Evidently support for that proposition was said to be found in Methuen-Campbell v Walters [1979] QB 525. 31. Mr Harrison made rival submissions and drew attention to the more recent Supreme Court decision in Hosebay Ltd v Day & anor [2012] UKSC 41, where in paragraph 6 Lord Carnwath said: “6. Although the 1967 Act like the 1993 Act is in a sense expropriatory, in that it confers rights on lessees to acquire rights compulsorily from their lessors, this has been held not to give rise to interpretative presumption in favour of the latter.” Lord Carnwath then cited with approval a passage from a judgment of Millett LJ where, as regards the 1993 Act, he said: “It would, in my opinion, be wrong to disregard the fact that, while the Act may to some extent be regarded as expropriatory of the landlord’s interest, nevertheless it was passed for the benefit of tenants. It is the duty of the court to construe the 1993 Act and with a view, if possible, to making it effective to confer on tenants those advantages which Parliament must have intended them to enjoy.” 32. We reject Mr Granby’s submission that s57(1)(b) is unclear such that we should imply the word ‘lawful’ which he contended for. We have given careful consideration to the rival arguments. We prefer the submissions of Mr Harrison. We find that s57(1)(b) applies to all alterations made to the property since the grant of the lease. Where those are lawful, in the sense that where written consent of the landlord is required and has been given, there will be no argument. Where alterations are unlawful in the sense that written consent is required but has not been given, the landlord may or may be in a position to enforce the covenant or obtain a remedy. The landlord may not have any view or objection, or the landlord may have waived the obligation on the tenant to obtain a written consent or some other form of estoppel may inhibit the landlord from obtaining a remedy. 33. Mr Granby submitted that s57(1)(b) should be construed as to apply only to lawful alterations, and thus the respondents are entitled to insist the lease plan to be annexed to the new lease shall be the same lease plan that was annexed to the existing lease. If that were to happen it would expose the applicants to risk and prejudice and would be contrary to the position on the ground and so not reflect reality or the marker as to the floor plans which the parties as the original landlord and tenant clearly intended. 34. Mr Harrison submitted that where a tenant may have carried out alterations which were not lawful is the sense the written consent was not given, the landlord is free to take such steps as he sees fit to obtain a remedy. Where a new lease is sought, it is open to the landlord to make a counter-proposal in his counter-notice to the effect that the new lease is to contain a covenant to reinstate the premises to the original lay-out within a specified period. If that were to be contentious it would amount to ‘a term of acquisition in dispute’ and there is a process to determine it. Mr Harrison said that in the present case the respondents were plainly aware of the alterations in question because reference was made to them in the counter-notice, but the respondents did not see fit to require the new lease to contain a reinstatement provision. He submitted it was now too late for the respondents to do so. Mr Harrison also observed that the respondents have not, to date, taken any steps to pursue any remedy in respect of the alterations which they contend are unlawful. 35. In these circumstances we determine that the format of the lease plan to be annexed to the new lease shall be in the format contended for by the applicants and appended to their notice of claim. For avoidance of doubt a copy of that plan is appended to this decision. 36. Having come to this conclusion on the statutory construction we gave careful consideration as to whether we should make findings of fact on the contentious issue of whether the respondents had given oral consent to the alterations and/or had unreasonably failed to give a written consent within a reasonable time such that written consent was no longer required. Such findings may have been helpful if, on appeal, the Upper Tribunal held that our construction of the Act was in error. 37. We were conscious that the tribunal has not given directions for the serving of written statements of witnesses of fact. The applicants had served a statement quite close to the hearing. The respondent had responded quickly on the footing that something was better than nothing, but Mr Granby made clear Mrs Ahluwalia’s statement in answer was rushed. Plus, it appeared that the respondents might wish to contend that part of the alterations affected the structure. 38. We concluded that if the question was whether the subject alterations were lawful or unlawful, was an important question of significance, that question ought to be determined on the basis that both parties had a full and considered opportunity to prepare and put forward all of the evidence they wised to rely upon. The downside to this approach was that if the Upper Tribunal were to set aside this decision it will probably remit the question of whether the alterations were lawful or not back to this tribunal. If that occurred it would put the parties to further costs, expense and delay. 39. We shared our preliminary views with the parties. Following a short adjournment to consider the point and take instructions, both counsel informed us that they were content that we should not proceed to hear the rival evidence as is stood and make findings of fact on it. We therefore confirmed that we would not do so. The drafting point 40. In the event only one drafting point remained in issue. It concerned paragraph 17 of Schedule 5. In the existing lease it reads: “17. Not to live in the Property unless all floors (other than the kitchen and bathroom) are covered in good quality carpeting and underlay.” The applicant proposes to insert two words (which we have shown in bold) so that it should read [78]: “17. Not to live in the Property unless all floors (other than the kitchen and bathroom) are covered in good quality [sound deadening/ carpeting and] underlay.” The drafting proposed does not seem to be too good. 41. Mr Harrison submitted that when the lease was granted wooden or laminate flooring was laid in part of the flat and the proposed amendment was simply to reflect that factual position. 42. Mr Granby opposed that position. He submitted there was no factual evidence before the tribunal as what floor covering was in place at the time of the grant of the lease. He also submitted that the proposed amendment did not fall within s57(6)(a) or (b). Mr Granby cited paragraph 31-10 in Hague: Leasehold Enfranchisement Sixth Edition to the effect that words such as ‘defect’, ‘convenient’ and ‘necessary’ should be given a strict or narrow construction, and that the onus is on the person proposing the change to show that there are grounds for modifying the term in question. Mr Granby also relied upon Burchell v Raj Properties Ltd [2013] UKUT 443 (LC). 43. We prefer the submissions of Mr Granby on this point. There was no factual evidence before us either as to the floor covering in place at the time of the grant or that the proposed change is necessary to remedy a defect or that it would be unreasonable not to modify the term. If it is the case that paragraph 17 of Schedule 5 did not reflect the understanding or agreement of the parties at the time of the grant of the lease such, that a mistake, whether common or unilateral, has occurred, the applicants will have remedies elsewhere. 44. Accordingly, we have made a determination that paragraph 17 of Schedule 5 shall not be modified in the new lease as proposed by the applicants.LON/00AE/OLR/2018/0637 · 2018
53A, Shepperton Road, Petts Wood, Orpington Kent BR5 1DL: LON/00AF/OLR/2018/0486LON/00AF/OLR/2018/0486 · 2018
Flat A, 12 Queen Anne Avenue, Bromley, Kent, BR2 0SB: LON/00AF/OLR/2018/0667LON/00AF/OLR/2018/0667 · 2018
Flat B, 12 Queen Anne Avenue, Bromley, Kent, BR2 0SB: LON/00AF/OLR/2018/0669LON/00AF/OLR/2018/0669 · 2018
Flat 62 Godwin Court, Crowndale Road, London NW1 1NW: LON/00AG/HMF/2018/0004LON/00AG/HMF/2018/0004 · 2018
49 Cartmel, Hampstead Road, London NW1 3SH: LON/00AG/HMF/2018/2027LON/00AG/HMF/2018/2027 · 2018
97 Burnham Tower, Fellows Road, London NW3 3JP: LON/00AG/HMK/2017/0016LON/00AG/HMK/2017/0016 · 2018
Flat 5, 47 Fitzroy Street, London W1T 6LA: LON/00AG/HMK/2018/0003LON/00AG/HMK/2018/0003 · 2018
8 Ivybridge Court, Lewis Street, London NW1 8PX: LON/00AG/HMK/2018/0020LON/00AG/HMK/2018/0020 · 2018
17a Prince of Wales Road, Kentish Town, London NW5 3LH: LON/00AG/HMK/2018/0023LON/00AG/HMK/2018/0023 · 2018
3 Borrowdale, Robert Street, London NW1 3QG: LON/00AG/HMK/2018/0024LON/00AG/HMK/2018/0024 · 2018
Second Floor Flat, 71 Mornington Street, London NW1 7QE: LON/00AG/HML/2018/0010LON/00AG/HML/2018/0010 · 2018
17B Kings Gardens, London NW6 4PU: LON/00AG/HNA/2018/0010LON/00AG/HNA/2018/0010 · 2018
Basement Flat, 119 Kings Cross Road, London WC1X 9NH: LON/00AG/HPO/2017/0012LON/00AG/HPO/2017/0012 · 2018
Studios 2 & 11 Platts Lane London NW3 7NP: LON/00AG/HPO/2017/0013LON/00AG/HPO/2017/0013 · 2018
Flat 1, 51 Shelton Street, London, WC2H 9JU: LON/00AG/OLR/2018/0305LON/00AG/OLR/2018/0305 · 2018
Top floor flat, 21B Woodstock Road, Croydon, Surrey CR0 1JS: LON/00AH/OLR/2018/0752LON/00AH/OLR/2018/0752 · 2018
Flat 8, Mall Court, 30 The Mall, Ealing, London W5 2PZ: LON/00AJ/HIN/2017/0026LON/00AJ/HIN/2017/0026 · 2018
70 Highview Road, West Ealing, W13 0HW: LON/00AJ/HMK/2018/006LON/00AJ/HMK/2018/006 · 2018
TRS Apartments, The Green, Southall, Middlesex UB2 4FE: LON/00AJ/HSL/2017/0002LON/00AJ/HSL/2017/0002 · 2018
4 Shirley Gardens, London W7 3PT: LON/00AJ/OLR/2018/0616LON/00AJ/OLR/2018/0616 · 2018
40 Drayton Bridge Road, London W7 1EX: LON/00AJ/OLR/2018/0635LON/00AJ/OLR/2018/0635 · 2018
Mr Sukul, Ms Roy and their two children; Sabrida Saha (Mr Sukul’s brother); Dipa Roy (Mr Sukul’s sister); Shumi Roy (family); and Gange Roy (Mr Sukul’s mother). 23. In his witness statement, dated 28 September, Mr Sukul states that he was staying at the property with his “family” and his “cousin, Ratan Kumar”. This does not correspond with the details recorded by Mrs Cannon. 24. On 21 June (Exhibit LBE/24), Mrs Cannon wrote to Mr Uddin requesting copies of the tenant’s passports, the tenant’s national insurance numbers and date of birth. She further requested a plan of how the family were related. This information was not provided. 25. On 22 June (at A74), Enfield made their Declaration that the property is a HMO. This decision had been reached on 18 April when Mrs Cannon had made her first inspection. It is this decision that is subject to the current appeal. 26. Pursuant to the directions made by the Tribunal, a further inspection was arranged for 14 August. Mrs Cannon’s Note of the inspection is at R82. She recorded that the tenant was very distressed. Ms Roy was expecting her baby at any time. Mr Alom asserted that the property was let to a single household. Mr Sukul had sublet the property without the consent of the landlord and the Notice Seeking Possession had been served in March. 27. On 1 September (at A33), a further advertisement appeared on gumtree seeking a rent of £460pm. There is a photograph of the first-floor front room. On 16 September (at SB53), another room was advertised on gumtree at a rent of £450pm. 28. At the hearing on 31 October, the Applicant informed the Tribunal that the following were residing at the property: Mr Sukul, Ms Roy and their three children, Shumojit, Sheoshi (both born on 27 November 2015) and Susmita (born in August 2018); Mr Ratan Kunar (Mr Sukul’s cousin) and Ms Ganga Roy (Mr Sukul’s sister). Mr Sukul stated that Mr Kunar had been occupying the rear room on the second floor since February 2018, paying a rent of £450 pm. Ms Ganga Roy was occupying the front room on the second floor and was paying £400 pm. 29. Pursuant to the Directions of this Tribunal, there was a joint inspection on 1 November. The Tribunal was not present. On 7 November, the Respondent has provided a detailed Note. The Applicant has neither agreed the Note nor sent a Note in Response as was contemplated in the Directions. 30. Mrs Cannon was accompanied by Mrs Fabiola Razack and Mr Muhammed Islam, officers employed by Enfield. Mr Islam is fluent in Bengali and helped to interpret. Inspection Notes have been provided by Mrs Razack (at SB29) and Mr Rahman (at SB30). Mr Alom and Mr Sukul were also present. 31. Mr Alom provided photocopies of the passports for Mr Sukul (at SB 8), Ms Supria Roy (at SB9) and Mr Subrata Saha (at SB 10). They were all born in Bangladesh. The photocopy of Mr Saha’s passport is indecipherable. Mr Alom was requested to provide a digitalised copy. This request was confirmed by e-mail (at SB11). The Applicant has not provided this. The Bangladeshi passport for Mr Sukul is dated 10 July 2017 and was issued in Dhaka. Mr Saha has a British Passport which was issued on 11 June 2018. Both were issued after 31 August 2016, the date of the purported AST. This undermines Mr Alom’s evidence that he took photocopies of their passports which he retained on file, prior to granting the AST. 32. Mr Sukul informed Mrs Cannon that the ground floor front room was not occupied and was used as a play room for children. There was a wardrobe and a double bed with covers. There are photos at SB12-13. Mr Sukul and Mr Alom informed Mrs Cannon the ground floor middle room was occupied by Mrs Ganga Roy. Mr Sukul stated that Mrs Roy was not prepared to supply any information as she is only a tenant. There are photos at SB 14-18. This room was clearly being occupied. Mr Islam subsequently made contact with Mrs Roy who refused to provide any information. She stated that she would be leaving in the following month, but would not say why. She stated that she paid rent to Mr Sukul who is her “cousin brother”. She is from the Jessore District in Bangladesh. 33. Mr Sukul stated that the first-floor rooms were occupied by his family. He initially stated that the family slept in the front room. There are phot0s at SB19-21). He stated that the middle room was used as a living room (photos at SB24-25). Mr Sukul informed Mrs Cannon that he slept in the rear room when he was working double shifts and did not want to be disturbed. There were two single beds pushed together and a mattress with a cover leaning against the wall (see photos at SB26-28). Mr Sukul informed Mrs Razack that two of his children slept in this room. 34. Mr Sukul informed Mrs Cannon that the second-floor front room was occupied by Mr Ratan Barman. Mr Barman was not present and no identity documents have been provided. Mr Sukul told Mrs Razack that Mr Barman was not related to him, but was Ms Ganga Roy’s brother. He added that Mr Barman was also related to Mr Subrata Saha, the other joint tenant to the AST. Whilst Mrs Razack was questioning Mr Sukul, she states that Mr Alom interrupted and said to Mr Sukul “why don’t you stick to your original statement” and asked “why are you changing your statement?”. Mr Islam records that Mr Alom said to Mr Alom in Bengali “do not make it complicated and tell them what you told in front of the judge”. 35. Mr Sukul informed Mrs Cannon that the second-floor rear room was not occupied. There was a double bed, wardrobe and chest of drawers in this room. There are photos at SB35-39. There were numerous personal effects stored in the wardrobe and drawers. Under the bed covers there was a bottle of water and a roll of toilet paper. These factors suggest that the room was being occupied. The Tribunal’s Determination 36. On a number of factual issues, there is a conflict between the evidence of the Respondent (Mrs Cannon, Mrs Razack, and Mr Islam) and that of the Applicant (Mr Uddin, Mr Alom and Mr Sukul). Where there is such a conflict, we prefer the evidence adduced by Enfield. The Tribunal found Mrs Cannon to be careful and reliable witness. Much of her evidence was supported by contemporaneous file notes and photographs. 37. We fond both Mr Uddin and Mr Alom to be unsatisfactory witnesses. They both sought to give answers that would support the Applicant’s appeal. Mr Alom informed the Tribunal that he took photographs of the passports of both Mr Sukul and Mr Saha before granting them the AST in August 2016. He was unable to produce copies of these. Mr Uddin stated that he had served the Notice Seeking Possession in March 2018 as soon as he learnt that Mr Sukul was sub-letting the property. Mrs Cannon was definite that she did not make contact with the landlord (via Mr Alom) until 11 April 2018. Mrs Cannon was clear that Mr Uddin had telephoned her on 8 May asking for more time to complete and return the application to register the property as a HMO. The Tribunal does not accept Mr Uddin’s account that he merely requested more time to seek legal advice. 38. It is not necessary for this Tribunal to determine the relationship between Mr Uddin and Mr Sukul. However, it was apparent at both the hearing and the joint inspection on 1 November, that Mr Alom was anxious to ensure that Mr Sukul’s evidence would support the Applicant’s appeal. We suspect that Mr Uddin’s primary concern was to ensure that he received rent of £2,000 pm from Mr Sukul and that he was indifferent as to how Mr Sukul secured the money to pay the rent. 39. The Tribunal would normally have given limited weight to the e-mail that Enfield received from the tenant on 20 February 2018 (see [20] above). This tenant was not called to give evidence. However, there is ample evidence that Mr Sukul had been advertising rooms to let at the property before and after this date. In his statement, Mr Sukul described how he had “emptied the rooms within a month” after being told that he could not sub-let. He did not explain the circumstances in which Mr Okele had vacated the property. There was no evidence that he had respected the legal rights of his tenants. 40. The first issue which we are required to determine is whether we should confirm or reverse the Respondent’s Declaration that the property was a HMO. This is dated 22 June 2018. However, the Respondent had resolved on 18 April 2018 that the Declaration should be served. This is the date on which Mc Cannon made her first inspection. 41. The Applicant did not challenge Mrs Cannon’s evidence relating to her inspection on 18 April (see [23] above). There was clear and cogent evidence, which was uncontradicted, that the property was being occupied as a HMO on this date and met the “standard test” for a HMO as defined by section 254(2) of the Act: (a) It consisted of a number of units of living accommodation not consisting of self- contained flats: (b) the living accommodation was occupied by persons who do not form a single household. The occupants were not members of the same family as defined by section 258. We accept that Mr Sukul was living there with his wife and two children. However, Mr Paul Okele was renting the ground floor; Mr Ratan Barman was renting the second-floor front room and Lilah was renting the second-floor rear room. There is no suggestion that there was any family relationship between Mr Sukul and either Mr Okele or Lilah. The Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Barman is related to Mr Sukul. (c) The living accommodation was occupied by those persons as their only or main residence. (d) Their occupation of the living accommodation constituted the only use of that accommodation; (e) Rents were payable in at least one of those persons' occupation of the living accommodation; and (f) Two or more of the households who occupied the living accommodation were sharing basic amenities, namely cooking, bathroom and toilet facilities. We therefore have no hesitation in confirming the Declaration made by the Respondent. 42. Our appeal is by way of a re-hearing and we are entitled to have regard to matters of which the Respondent were unaware. We have asked ourselves whether we would have reached a different decision had we been required to consider whether the property was a HMO on 31 October. We are satisfied that we would not. We accept that Mr Sukul was living there with his wife and two children. However, there were a number of other occupants who were paying rent. We are not satisfied that they were members of Mr Sukul’s family. There were other rooms, with beds, which were available for letting. Even as late as September, rooms were being advertised on gumtree. We reach this decision without having to resort to either the “significant use condition” or the statutory presumption in section 260 of the Act.LON/00AK/HMD/2018/0009 · 2018
22 Ennis Road, Plumstead, London SE18 2QT: LON/00AL/HIN/2018/0003LON/00AL/HIN/2018/0003 · 2018
26 Harraden Road, London SE3 8BZ: LON/00AL/HMK/2018/0016LON/00AL/HMK/2018/0016 · 2018
Rooms 2 and 4, 209 Court Road, Mottingham, London SE9 4TG: LON/00AL/HMK/2018/0022LON/00AL/HMK/2018/0022 · 2018
130 McLeod Road, London SE2 0BS: LON/00AL/OLR/2018/0260LON/00AL/OLR/2018/0260 · 2018
Flats at Sheldon House, 1 Baltic Place, London, N1 5AQLON/00AM/LDC/2019/0032 · 2018
First & Second Floor, 297 Glyn Road, London E5 0JP: LON/00AM/OLR/2018/0853LON/00AM/OLR/2018/0853 · 2018
64 Avonmore Road, London W14 8RS: LON/00AN/HMK/2017/0009LON/00AN/HMK/2017/0009 · 2018
Basement Flat, 38 Fentiman Road, London SW8 1LF: LON/00AP/HPO/2017/0011LON/00AP/HPO/2017/0011 · 2018
First & Second Floor Flat, 41, Argyle Road, London, N17 0BE: LON/00AP/OLR/2018/0656LON/00AP/OLR/2018/0656 · 2018
Ground Floor Flat, 169 Westbury Avenue, London N22 6RX: LON/00AP/OLR/2018/0692LON/00AP/OLR/2018/0692 · 2018
Flat A, 10 Grove Avenue Muswell Hill London N10 2ARLON/00AP/OLR/2018/1051 · 2018
76 Howberry Road, Edgware, Middx, HA8 6SY: LON/00AQ/HMD/2018/0001LON/00AQ/HMD/2018/0001 · 2018
70 Lowlands Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3AN: LON/00AQ/HML/2018/0014LON/00AQ/HML/2018/0014 · 2018
4 Gordon Gardens, Edgware, Middlesex HA8 5HG: LON/00AQ/HPO/2018/0006LON/00AQ/HPO/2018/0006 · 2018
Flat A, 96 Park Lane, South Harrow, HA2 8NLLON/00AQ/OLR/2018/1029 · 2018
10 Stanley Close, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 2NE: LON/00AS/OLR/2018/0536LON/00AS/OLR/2018/0536 · 2018
Lower Maisonette & Parking Space, 15 Midhurst Gardens, Uxbridge UB10 9DL: LON/00AS/OLR/2018/0676LON/00AS/OLR/2018/0676 · 2018
70 Watermill Way Feltham Middlesex: LON/00AT/HIV/2018/0001LON/00AT/HIV/2018/0001 · 2018
Basement Flat, 173 Thornbury Road, Isleworth, TW7 4QG: LON/00AT/HPO/2018/0011LON/00AT/HPO/2018/0011 · 2018
10 Merton Avenue, Chiswick London W4 1TA: LON/00AT/OLR/2018/0203LON/00AT/OLR/2018/0203 · 2018
10 Lampton Court, Lampton Road, Hounslow, Middlesex TW3 4EU: LON/00AT/OLR/2018/0327LON/00AT/OLR/2018/0327 · 2018
3 Cremorne Road, Chelsea SW10 0NA: LON/00AW/HMK/2018/0033LON/00AW/HMK/2018/0033 · 2018
12 St. Andrews Road, Surbiton, Surrey, KT6 4DT: LON/00AX/HIN/2018/0001LON/00AX/HIN/2018/0001 · 2018
2 Hawker Court, Queens Road Kingston Surrey KT2 7SE: LON/00AX/OLR/2018/0438LON/00AX/OLR/2018/0438 · 2018
15 Central Parade, St Mark’s Hill, Surbiton KT6 4PJ: LON/00AX/OLR/2018/0554LON/00AX/OLR/2018/0554 · 2018
111 Park Hill, Clapham, SW4 9NX: LON/00AY/HMK/2018/0012LON/00AY/HMK/2018/0012 · 2018
Flat 6, 35 Rosendale Road, London SE21 8DX: LON/00AY/OLR/2018/0266LON/00AY/OLR/2018/0266 · 2018
Flat 4, 60 Gleneldon Road Streatham London SW16 2BD: LON/00AY/OLR/2018/0522LON/00AY/OLR/2018/0522 · 2018
Ground Floor Flat, 57 St Donatts Road London SE14 6NU: LON/00AZ/OLR/2018/0178LON/00AZ/OLR/2018/0178 · 2018
First Floor Flat, 37 Bradgate Road, London SE6 4TT: LON/00AZ/OLR/2018/0194LON/00AZ/OLR/2018/0194 · 2018
Flat A, 388 Baring Road, Grove Park, London SE12 0EF: LON/00AZ/OLR/2018/0900LON/00AZ/OLR/2018/0900 · 2018
37 Bradgate Road, Catford, London SE6 4TT: LON/00AZ/OLR/2018/1539LON/00AZ/OLR/2018/1539 · 2018
1 Exeter Court, Devonshire Road, Colliers Wood, London SW19 2EJ: LON/00BA/OLR/2018/0268LON/00BA/OLR/2018/0268 · 2018
Upper Floor Flat, 33A South Park Road, London SW19 8RR: LON/00BA/OLR/2018/0599LON/00BA/OLR/2018/0599 · 2018
26 Atherton Road, Forest Green, London E7 9AJ: LON/00BB/HMK/2018/0018LON/00BB/HMK/2018/0018 · 2018
96 Leytonstone Road, Stratford E15: LON/00BB/HNA/2017/0007LON/00BB/HNA/2017/0007 · 2018
Flat above Victoria Cross Pub, Jack Cornwell Street, E12 5NN: LON/00BB/HNA/2017/0021LON/00BB/HNA/2017/0021 · 2018
38 Marlborough Road, Forest Gate, London E7 8HB: LON/00BB/HNA/2018/0041LON/00BB/HNA/2018/0041 · 2018
102A Caulfield Road, London E6 2EN:LON/00BB/OLR/2018/0219LON/00BB/OLR/2018/0219 · 2018
240 New North Road, Ilford, Essex IG6 3BS: LON/00BC/HMK/2018/0001LON/00BC/HMK/2018/0001 · 2018
11B Vaughan Gardens Ilford, Essex IG1 3PA: LON/00BC/OLR/2018/1404LON/00BC/OLR/2018/1404 · 2018
Flat 3, 38 Peckham High Street, London SE15 5DP: LON/00BE/HIN/2017/0019LON/00BE/HIN/2017/0019 · 2018
Flat 2, 185-186 Grange Road, London SE1 3AA: LON/00BE/HPO/2017/0009 and LON/00BE/HML/2017/0017LON/00BE/HML/2017/0017 · 2018
65A Lant Street, London SE1 1QN: LON/00BE/HML/2018/0020LON/00BE/HML/2018/0020 · 2018
62 Denman Road, London SE15 5NR: LON/00BE/HMR/2018/0002LON/00BE/HMR/2018/0002 · 2018
9 Langdon Way London SE1 5QN: LON/00BE/HMV/2018/0006LON/00BE/HMV/2018/0006 · 2018
Flat 5 Leaf House, 72 Peckham Road, London SE5 8PULON/00BE/OLR/2018/1252 · 2018
26 The Maisonettes, Alberta Avenue, Cheam, Sutton, SM1 2LQ: LON/00BF/OLR/2018/0156LON/00BF/OLR/2018/0156 · 2018
21 Geere Road, E15 3PN: LON/00BG/HMB/2018/0001LON/00BG/HMB/2018/0001 · 2018
Flat 11 Nestor House, Old Bethnal Green Road, London E2 6QU: LON/00BG/HMB/2018/0002LON/00BG/HMB/2018/0002 · 2018
56 Borwick Ave, London E17 6RA: LON/00BH/HIN/2018/0014LON/00BH/HIN/2018/0014 · 2018
70 Devonshire Close, E15 1UG: LON/00BH/HMK/2018/0017LON/00BH/HMK/2018/0017 · 2018
Flat 1, 2 and 4, 55 Westbury Road, London E17 6RH: LON/00BH/HNA/2017/0013LON/00BH/HNA/2017/0013 · 2018
15A Melford Road, London E11 4PR: LON/00BH/HNA/2017/0020LON/00BH/HNA/2017/0020 · 2018
117 Mayville Road, London E11 4PL: LON/00BH/HPR/2018/0001LON/00BH/HPR/2018/0001 · 2018
2A St George’s Road, Leyton, London E10 5RH: LON/00BH/OLR/2018/0145LON/00BH/OLR/2018/0145 · 2018
First Floor, 36 Norlington Road, London E10 6JZ: LON/00BH/OLR/2018/0502LON/00BH/OLR/2018/0502 · 2018
Flat 1, 18, Belmont Park Road, Leyton, London, E10 6AU: LON/00BH/OLR/2018/0579LON/00BH/OLR/2018/0579 · 2018
Reservoir Cottage, 1 Wildcroft Road, London SW15 3TP: LON/00BJ/HPO/2018/0001LON/00BJ/HPO/2018/0001 · 2018
Flat 1, 3 Veronica Road, London, SW17 8QL: LON/00BJ/OLR/2018/0199LON/00BJ/OLR/2018/0199 · 2018
46b Moyser Road London SW16 6RW: LON/00BJ/OLR/2018/0776LON/00BJ/OLR/2018/0776 · 2018
39B Warwick Avenue, London W9 2PR: LON/00BK/HIN/2018/0011LON/00BK/HIN/2018/0011 · 2018
22/23 Hyde Park Place, London W2 2LPLON/00BK/LAM/2017/0031 · 2018
77 Abbey Road, London NW8 0AELON/00BK/LAM/2018/0009 · 2018
Flat 1, 229 Sussex Gardens, London W2 2RLLON/00BK/LSC/2017/0447 · 2018
60A Hanover Gate Mansions, Park Road, London NW1 4SNLON/00BK/LSC/2018/0260 · 2018
Flat 11 Oslo Court, Prince Albert Road, London MW8 7EN: LON/00BK/OLR/2018/0453LON/00BK/OLR/2018/0453 · 2018
54 Brewery Lane, Twickenham TW1 1AW: LON/OOBD/HMK/2017/0012LON/OOBD/HMK/2017/0012 · 2018
2 Linden Road, Beeston, Leeds, LS11 6HAMAN/00DA/HML/2018/0001 · 2018
Flats 1-7 Westbourne Street, Leeds LS11 6EN Applellant : Ilkley Taxis LimitedMAN/00DA/HPO/2017/0004, 0005, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0010 · 2018
Flats 1, 4 and 5, 151 Stratford Street, Leeds LS11 7EQMAN/00DA/HPO/2018/0003 · 2018
Flats 1 - 20, Easter Wynd, Berwick upon Tweed TD15 1DTMAN/00EM/LSC/2019/0015 · 2018
6 and 10, Chorcliffe Mews. Chorley, Lancashire PR7 1EP Appellant : Tariq AhmedMAN/30UE/HML/2018/0003 · 2018
Nurjahan Khatun v Toasir Ali (Beneficial interests, trusts and restrictions : Severance)[2018] UKFTT 316 (PC) · 2018