Volosinovici v Corvan (Properties) Ltd (Supplemental decision) [2007] EWLands LRX_67

LRX/67/2006

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

LANDLORD AND TENANT - service charges - procedure - applicant’s failure to comply with
LVT’s directions - power to dismiss under Regulation 11 of Leasehold Valuation Tribunals
(Procedure) (England) Regulations 2003 - failure by LVT properly to consider the matter under
Regulation 11.

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE LEASEHOLD
VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR THE LONDON RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

BETWEEN MARILENA VOLOSINOVICI Appellant

and
CORVAN (PROPERTIES) LIMITED Respondent

Re: Flat 726,
Clive Court,
Maida Vale,
London W9 1SG

Before: His Honour Judge Huskinson

Supplemental decision upon costs: section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

as amended

1. This decision is supplemental to the principal decision in this matter dated 16 July 2007.
In paragraph 36 of that decision I gave directions to be followed if the Appellant wished to
make an application under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as amended. The
Appellant has made such an application.

2. I should record that that the Appellant has reserved her position upon the question of
whether, having regard to the terms of the relevant lease, the costs of these proceedings before
the Lands Tribunal are costs which can properly be taken into account when determining the
amount of service charge payable by the Appellant. Helpfully it has been agreed between
Mr Buckpitt and Mr Bates that I should consider this section 20C application on the
assumption that legal costs are recoverable under the terms of the lease through the service
charge machinery, but that I should do on the basis that this is entirely without prejudice to
both parties’ rights to argue in the future the issue of whether such costs are indeed recoverable
under the terms of the lease.

3. I am only concerned with the costs of the proceedings before the Lands Tribunal.

4. The Appellant was successful on her appeal to the Lands Tribunal. However the need for
this appeal did not arise from any unreasonable conduct on the part of the Respondent. Instead
the need for the appeal arose because of the unfortunate course taken by the LVT of striking
out certain parts of the Appellant’s application for “failing to comply substantively” with
certain directions which the LVT had previously given, without giving proper consideration to
the matter under Regulation 11 of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (Procedure) (England)
Regulations 2003 and without giving clear and sufficient reasons for its conclusions.

5. Section 20C provides so far as presently relevant:

“Limitation of service charges: costs of proceedings

(1) A tenant may make an application for an order that all or any of the costs
incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings before a
court, [residential property tribunal] or leasehold valuation tribunal, or the Lands
Tribunal, or in connection with arbitration proceedings, are not to be regarded as
relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service
charge payable by the tenant or any other person or persons specified in the
application.

(2) The application shall be made -
...
(c) in the case of proceedings before the Lands Tribunal, to the tribunal;

(3) The court or tribunal to which the application is made may make such order on
the application as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.”

6. I also have regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Iperion Investments v
Broadwalk House Residents Limited (1995) 27 HLR 196 and to the Lands Tribunal decision of
His Honour Judge Rich QC in Langford Court Tenants v Doren Limited (LRX/37/2000). It is
clear from the wording of section 20C and from these decisions that the power of the Lands
Tribunal in making an order under Section 20C can be effective in relation to

“... the amount of any service charge payable by the tenant or any other person or
persons specified in the application.”

Accordingly an order under section 20C that certain costs are not to be regarded as relevant
costs can properly be an order made in favour of a particular tenant, such that the landlord is
disabled from including certain costs within the relevant costs when calculating that particular
tenant’s service charge but is not so disabled as regards other tenants in the relevant
building(s), see in particular the judgment of Staughton LJ in the Iperion case and paragraph
11 of Judge Rich’s decision.

7. I do not read the Appellant’s application under section 20C as an application on behalf of
any person other than herself. There are no other “person or persons specified in the
application” within the words of section 20C(1). Even if this is not the correct reading of the
Appellant’s application I conclude that in any event on the particular facts of this case it is just
and equitable for the order which I propose to make to be only an order in relation to the
Appellant’s position.

8. I consider that it is just and equitable that the Appellant, who was successful in the Lands
Tribunal, should not have to pay through her service charge any part of the Respondent’s costs
of the proceedings before the Lands Tribunal. It is just and equitable for her to pay her own
costs such as they may have been of the proceedings before the Lands Tribunal (although it is
noted that her costs will be substantially less than they would otherwise have been bearing in
mind that Mr Bates was good enough to act on a pro-bono basis for her) and for the
Respondent to be prevented as against the Appellant from recovering through the service
charge any part of the Respondent’s costs of the proceedings before the Lands Tribunal. This
will mean that the Respondent will have to bear itself what would otherwise have been the
Appellant’s share of these costs (I gather that this share is 0.55%).

9. However, while I consider it just and equitable that the Respondent should not recover
from the Appellant through the service charge any part of the costs of the proceedings before
the Lands Tribunal, I do not consider it would be just and equitable for the Respondent to have
to bear itself any greater amount of those costs than the share which would otherwise been
borne by the Appellant. Thus the order I make below is framed so as not to affect the
Respondent’s ability to include the costs of the Lands Tribunal proceedings as part of the
relevant costs to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of any service charge
payable by any tenants in the relevant building(s) other than the Appellant.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Lands Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Lands Tribunal >> Volosinovici v Corvan (Properties) Ltd (Supplemental decision) [2007] EWLands LRX_67_2006 (25 October 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2007/LRX_67_2006(Supp).html Cite as: [2007] EWLands LRX_67_2006



	LRX/67/2006

	LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949 *LANDLORD* *AND* *TENANT* - *service* *charges* - *procedure* - *applicant’s* *failure* to *comply* with LVT’s *directions* - *power* to *dismiss* *under* *Regulation* 11 of *Leasehold* *Valuation* Tribunals (Procedure) *(England)* *Regulations* *2003* - *failure* by *LVT* *properly* to *consider* *the* *matter* under Regulation 11.

	IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR THE LONDON RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

	BETWEEN MARILENA VOLOSINOVICI Appellant and CORVAN (PROPERTIES) LIMITED Respondent

	Re: Flat 726, Clive Court, Maida Vale, London W9 1SG Before: His Honour Judge Huskinson

	Supplemental decision upon costs: section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as amended

	© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007

	1



	10. I therefore order under section 20C that the costs of these proceedings in the Lands Tribunal are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the tenant Marilena Volosinovici.

	Dated 25 October 2007

	His Honour Judge Huskinson

	4

England and Wales Lands Tribunal