A fly on the courtroom wall
How many landlords does it take to change a lightbulb?
This question was no joke to at least one leaseholder in a three-storey block of six flats in a well-heeled London suburb.
The building was humming along nicely - well-maintained, reasonable service charges - until a new managing agent took over. Then the leaseholders started receiving higher bills and the property itself was being neglected. Service declined but service charges rose.
"Charges for taking care of the garden, cleaning and electricity were as if this building had 50 flats, instead of six," explains the leaseholder (actually a representative of an elderly leaseholder). "They also double billed, charging for items that were already paid."
When the leaseholder wrote to the managing agent pointing out the double billing, "they ignored our letters," he says. "The agent then issued subsequent demands for payment, and added a charge of £23 for each letter." The agent also threatened legal action."
But the agent was less than meticulous in tending to the building. A car smashed into the brick wall in front of the block, demolishing most of the structure. "Despite the driver admitting liability, the agent took a year to have it fixed," the leaseholder explains.
When the leaseholder decided to complain to the LVT, he asked the other five owners to join the action. Four declined outright, and one agreed to participate, but only on one of several issues.
Are Briefs Ever Really Brief?
The leaseholder argued seven different points against the managing agent and, accordingly, prepared seven different briefs to submit to the LVT.
Each brief documented how much was paid and when, how much maintenance work was done and when, and how many letters went back and forth between the leaseholder and the agent, including invoices for letters sent.
Each brief ran to only a handful of pages, but writing them, and providing the correct payment amounts and dates, took a considerable amount of time. In some instances, several hours of writing and research time went into documenting an argument involving less than £50.
Seeing for Themselves
All three members of the LVT panel visited the building in question and carefully inspected it inside and out. Several months later, the actual hearing was held in central London.
The panel's very first question to the managing agent put him on the back foot: do you use the RICS standards for managing buildings. RICS is the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The agent said No. It was the wrong answer.
If the managing agent was in hot water at the outset, things only got worse.
The panel then noted that the building's energy usage was very limited. There was no lift, no swimming pool, no hot tubs, pretty much no nothing except for hallway lightbulbs. Three lightbulbs, to be precise.
The leaseholder easily proved that he had been double billed, that his letters of explanation had been ignored, and that the agent added further letter-writing charges to the total demanded.
The LVT judgement arrived in the post some weeks later. The panel found for the leaseholder on virtually every issue.
Plus ca change...
The leaseholder paid a fee to the LVT to bring the case, and this fee was refunded.
The managing agent did not refund any money to the leaseholder as required by the LVT decision, but the leaseholder has withheld the owed amount from future bills.
The agent has therefore sent new demands, including new charges for letter-writing. "The agent has even threatened to take us to the LVT," declares the incredulous leaseholder.
The Tribunal's ruling against the landlord applied only to the leaseholder who brought the case. It does not apply to the four other leaseholders, all of whom paid apparently outrageous service charges, and may also have paid for follow-up letters. And, unlike the leaseholder who went to court, they are probably still overpaying.
Back to