Service Charges Dispute Focuses on Report of ‘Intolerable’ Fire Risk

Tenants are only obliged to pay service charges that have been reasonably incurred. That principle was the focus of a guideline case concerning two apartment blocks which, according to an expert report, posed an intolerable fire risk.

Previous fire inspections of the blocks had uncovered…

Nov 15, 2022

Deborah cortelazzi grequcuxqli unsplash 1024x683

Tenants are only obliged to pay service charges that have been reasonably incurred. That principle was the focus of a guideline case concerning two apartment blocks which, according to an expert report, posed an intolerable fire risk.

Previous fire inspections of the blocks had uncovered no serious problems so that the report, which found combustible materials in their external walls, came as a bolt from the blue. The landlord’s response was to place a 24-hour waking watch on the blocks as an interim measure, at a cost of £28,000 a month.

The landlord sought to recover that cost from the blocks’ long leaseholders by way of service charges. They, however, complained to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), which found that the relevant charges had not been reasonably incurred and were thus not payable.

Upholding the landlord’s challenge to that outcome, the Upper Tribunal (UT) failed to see how any landlord, faced with a report from a reputable fire inspection specialist and signed by three fire safety professionals saying that the risk was intolerable, could be said to have acted irrationally by putting interim measures in place, pending further reports or the completion of remedial works. Whether the report was right or wrong, only a supremely confident landlord would have done anything else.

Substituting its own decision on the case, the UT found that it had been reasonable for the landlord to put in place a waking watch on both blocks for a period of one month. Given the FTT’s criticisms of the quality of the watch provided, however, only half of the cost – £14,000 – was recoverable from tenants.

ET Failed to Consider Context in Victimisation Claim, EAT Rules

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a woman’s appeal against the dismissal of her complaint of victimisation, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had adopted too narrow a definition of what could constitute a protected act and had not sufficiently analysed the context in which the complaint that was said to be a protected act was made. The woman had worked for a pharmacy business since 2001. In 2018 she moved to another of the business’s stores, where she was the only black…

A Business is Not an Autocracy – ET Fires Warning Shot

Old-school small business proprietors sadly often place themselves at grave financial and reputational risk by taking an autocratic approach to management. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in awarding substantial compensation to an unfairly sacked holiday park manager. The manager had a strong bond with the owner of the park, where he had worked for 26 years. After he suffered a major stroke, the owner – who was himself in very poor health – took steps to cater for his…

Employee Bonuses – A Commitment is a Commitment

When it comes to bonuses, commitments made to employees must be honoured. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in coming to the aid of a salesman whose employer prevaricated on its obligation to reward him with a six-figure sum following his successful closure of a multi-million-pound deal. The software salesman and his team spent many months negotiating the deal. His line manager later assured him that he would receive an exceptional six-figure bonus to mark his success and that the…