The original decisions under appeal looked at the conclusion that the appeal took, and pronounced that it would be commercially unavailable and unmanageable to interpret the Act in that way.
What is telling is that the Chancellor failed at look at section 20 in the round, ie the remainder of that Act that any and all charges still have to be fair reasonable and that there are protections in place. Recent decisions make it clear that it is not simply the cost and method but the manner, so that piecemeal jobs over a year that have a considerable financial impact can be challenged on their own merits without any need or reference to £250.
That allows for the case in point where more substantial works that ought to be in one job should have been and then therefore subject to the section 20 consultation procedures,AS WELL AS the overriding section 19.
He also made a contextual and wilful and erroneous misinterpretation of limiting contributions as being fundamentally different to the older £50/£100- trigger. £250 is still a trigger and the £250 a separate but interdependent cap.
It is therefore preposterous that the Supreme Court has sat on Daejan at the same time the High Court is ruling this pile of poo.
The wording makes it clear that you can do the works under £250, or consult and what you cannot do, you do next year.
So while on one hand saying costs in one year that avoid the threshold can now do so by spreading them year to year.....
Is nonsense as what that then means that he believes minor unrelated ( in nture and timing) works can be still be done, but then in 37 says
In addition such a construction conforms more closely to the ongoing works of repair and maintenance likely to be necessary on an estate in multiple occupation. They are unlikely to be identified as parts of a complete set of works which can be costed at the outset. In the normal way they will be carried out as and when required. The need for some limitation on an obligation to contribute is at least as necessary with sporadic works of that nature as with a redevelopment plan conceived and carried out as a whole.
So how do you address the unforeseen,he failed to reconcile if you incur £245 and need to incur more, then you consult but then that puts the initial £245 in jeopardy. The reverse is true, other wise you need two trances- oh but that's what LTA 1985 does already....
Accordingly, all of them should be brought into the account for computing the contribution and then applying the limit. It may be that they should be spread over more than one year thereby introducing another limit. With that exception, the provisions relating to this service charge do not require any identification of 'sets of qualifying works' or the avoidance of 'excessive fragmentation'.
Section 20 works in tandem with section 19, and hence the consistent interpretation with pre 2002 CLRA amendments.
In the words of the Pub Landlord he didn't think it through.
While those who exploit the situation are duly punished, the majority will in fact suffer, needed works will simply not be done, and for the RMCs RTM and RTE's insolvency is now very real. The bigger landlords and one of mine is thinking of transferring FH's offshore beyond prosecution, as they know that residents if properly adversed will find themselves financially exposed and will fear to take it on.
Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers. More ramblings atleaseholdpropertymanager.blogspot.com