The Islington Leaseholders Action Group (Ilag) has won its case against the London Borough of Islington over a charge for a leaseholders’ association.
The judgement of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal is available here: (lvtresult.pdf)
Leaseholders would like to give special thanks to Mr Francis Davey, a barrister at Temple Chambers specialising in housing and leasehold issues, who gave his services pro bono.
Counsel for the London Borough of Islington was Mr Christopher Baker, of Arden Chambers.
We believe that it would a fair report of the proceedings to say that the LVT accepted completely the arguments put forward by Mr Davey. Mr Davey is the joint author of a book called “Leasehold Disputes”.
Mr Baker’s submission was found to have no application to the matter at hand.
NOTE TO ABOVE STORY:
The following opinion on the case was written by Justin Bates, a barrister with Arden Chambers, in its bulletin. Ironically, Bates wrote a book on “Leasehold Disputes” with Mr Francis Davey, counsel for the applicants. Bates is also a tenant at the same chambers as Mr Christopher Baker, who acted for the respondents.
The respondent wished to establish an independent leaseholders association to represent the view of leaseholders and provide a mechanism by which their concerns and views could be passed on to the respondent. It proposed to charge a fee (initially of £20.80 per annum) to cover the costs of the association. The applicants took the view that there was no obligation on them to pay such a charge under the terms of their lease and applied to the LVT for a determination to this effect.The applicants contended that the absence of an express power to make such a charge under the lease was fatal to the respondent’s case and that general clauses conferring “management” powers and functions was insufficiently precise for these purposes.
The respondents argued that “management” should be given a broad interpretation, as it had in other areas of law, particularly in social housing cases.
The LVT found for the applicants. The lease between the parties was a binding contractual agreement. No reasonable tenant reading the lease would understand the general “management” clauses to include a power to establish (and charge for) a separate body.
Analysis
The lease between the parties is always the most important document. It defines the limits of the rights and obligations of the parties and – as a general rule – clear words are needed before it will be interpreted as requiring a tenant to pay for a particular service. General words will not usually be sufficient.
Although the concept of “management” had been interpreted broadly in social housing cases, this was of limited assistance when interpreting the lease. The obligations of the respondent in relation to other aspects of its role as a provider of social housing could not turn general words into an express obligation to pay for the establishment of the independent leaseholders
