How do i get my clown managing agent to supply me with appropriate information?

[leaseholdanswers]

OK, we do disagree and I've seen at least one LVT decision where a charge associated with a lease is deemed not in the LVT's jurisdiction (not rent). The type of admin charge that the LVT can decide upon are defined in sch. 11 of the Commonhold & Leasehold Act 2002.

Well yes, but I referred to that earlier

(1)In this Part of this Schedule “administration charge” means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent which is payable, directly or indirectly—

(c)in respect of a failure by the tenant to make a payment by the due date to the landlord or a person who is party to his lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, or
(d)in connection with a breach (or alleged breach) of a covenant or condition in his lease.


As to the LVT jurisdiction they still haven't clearly worked out if notice fees are "in or out"

[siva]

Just found an LVT case where a charge falls outside of the LVT's jurisdiction. It's a registration charge. I believe that legal costs per se, if they don't qualify as a service charge, will not be classed as an administration charge. That is unless they are "in connection with a breach (or alleged breach) of a covenant or condition in his lease." or one of the other defined charges.

[siva]

Well yes, but I referred to that earlier

I had a feeling we had our wires crossed! I don't see that (c) & (d) post you refer to. Either it's disapeared into the ether or I'm going doolally

[leaseholdanswers]

Just found an LVT case where a charge falls outside of the LVT's jurisdiction. It's a registration charge. I believe that legal costs per se, if they don't qualify as a service charge, will not be classed as an administration charge. That is unless they are "in connection with a breach (or alleged breach) of a covenant or condition in his lease." or one of the other defined charges.

When you say registration charge that's what I as referring to in #121 as "Notice fees" sorry. Several of us read the President's deliberation on it and read it as self contradictory. The registration fees don't get caught under 1 (1) at all.

The c and d bit is in #113 but I didn't quote it in full.

Not a disagreement just a hearty discussion

There was one decision a year or so ago where the s146 breach was tossed by the panel as being so silly and small as to be insignificant, but they allowed the costs to go forward under sch 11. The sch lacks a "reasonably incurred" which takes careful argument to get them to do, or, as Andydd says, either way you lose.

Thats why I say if you have rights use 'em. It's cheaper.

[andydd]

The OP isn't referring to administration costs so the SOTRAO for such costs are not required.

It is also irrelevant as to whether the Landlord has demanded payment of the legal costs or not, provided the tenant is liable to meet such costs as directed by the Lease, then they are payable.

I disagree.

A person cant just ask for his costs out of the blue, they must be recovered either:-


1. As ordered by a court. i.e the normal way is loser pays, however LVT's have no such powers except to re-imburse fees and the £500 'unreasonable' amount. It appears to me that this is not the case here.

or contractually (i,e under the lease).

2. Via the service charge

3. Via admin charge

Many leases do not allow such costs, but most do allow S146 legal costs which would be recovered I believe as an admin charge. They would both need to be demanded in proper way. i.e with Summary and could be challenged at LVT.

There certainly are LVT cases where a second case deals with the issue of costs recoverable under the lease.

Andy

[dant]

But dant under c & d (above) legal costs are classed as admin costs....

Any charges arising under the lease that are not service charges or rent are admin charges and the SI then does apply. And I have the LVT decisions that agreed with me

Yes he is liable, however statute allows him the right to challenge their reasonableness, and is entitled to withhold them until they are billed with the summary.

Sorry.

Could you post the links to the LVT decisions please, LHA?

[dant]

A landlord’s contractual right to legal costs is not restricted by CLRA 2002, Sch 12 para 10(4) (Schilling v Canary Riverside, unreported, Land Tribunal LRX/65/2005), but I can see where an argument might lie to class such costs as admin, service charge (Iperion), or both.

[leaseholdanswers]

A landlord’s contractual right to legal costs is not restricted by CLRA 2002, Sch 12 para 10(4) (Schilling v Canary Riverside, unreported, Land Tribunal LRX/65/2005), but I can see where an argument might lie to class such costs as admin, service charge (Iperion), or both.

Sorry but 10(4) relates to the £500 costs awarded , or not, by the LVT, not to do with sch 11. Canary was inclusion of Costs in the SC, not by the tenant, which fall under s19, and a different test of reasonableness. Thats why there are two different orders for the summaries.

Before we get into a long debate, which I am up for , though I prefer to be paid *, might it be more productive here to consider where the OP is, locked in a spin of adjournments with no determination by the Court or agreement ( anyone confirm?) and if he has to pay it, or can challenge it.


* I can ask mod 2 to split in into a new thread. I already posted a reply but removed it as it was getting away from helping the OP. Shall I?

[dant]

Sorry but 10(4) relates to the £500 costs awarded , or not, by the LVT, not to do with sch 11. Canary was inclusion of Costs in the SC, not by the tenant, which fall under s19, and a different test of reasonableness. Thats why there are two different orders for the summaries.

Before we get into a long debate, which I am up for , though I prefer to be paid *, might it be more productive here to consider where the OP is, locked in a spin of adjournments with no determination by the Court or agreement ( anyone confirm?) and if he has to pay it, or can challenge it.


* I can ask mod 2 to split in into a new thread. I already posted a reply but removed it as it was getting away from helping the OP. Shall I?

I think it could be educational to continue but yes, perhaps a more appropriate thread would allow the OP to concentrate on the original issues raised.

[siva]

A landlord’s contractual right to legal costs is not restricted by CLRA 2002, Sch 12 para 10(4) (Schilling v Canary Riverside, unreported, Land Tribunal LRX/65/2005), but I can see where an argument might lie to class such costs as admin, service charge (Iperion), or both.

In that case the costs in question had already been the subject of a s20C order application which was refused.

In this case the LL seems to be a little premature in threatening forfeiture for not paying legal costs. He is obviously annoyed that his settlement offer was rejected.

sbw, something that hasn't been mentioned. You are at risk of the CC awarding costs to the other side if you reject a settlement offer that is as good or better than the eventual decision given by the CC. Are you confident that the outcome will actually be better if you go to a hearing? The LL's solicitor may have a good point here for keeping this in the County Court.

I also wonder whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 will have a bearing if it turns out that the legal costs are not recoverable as a service charge buy as a direct charge on the tenant.