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.

EAT Upholds Dismissal of Racial Harassment Claim

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected a man’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim for racial harassment on the grounds that the incident did not happen in the course of employment and that his employer had taken all reasonable steps to prevent it. The man worked for an NHS trust as branch secretary of a trade union. A colleague of his who had formerly been a member of the union went to his office during a break from work to discuss the fact that membership subscriptions were…

Wind Turbine Technician Due Compensation for Severed Left Arm

Even the most careful employees can suffer industrial accidents for which even the most safety-conscious employers can be held responsible. The High Court made that point in the case of a technician whose left arm was traumatically amputated whilst he worked on the inner machinery of an offshore wind turbine. The technician, whose reputation for carefulness had earned him the nickname ‘Mr Safety’, was working within the housing of the turbine, which was on board ship and being prepared for…

Capability – Justifying the Dismissal of a Disabled Employee is Never Easy

Justifying the dismissal of a disabled employee on capability grounds is always likely to be an uphill struggle. That was certainly so in the case of an HGV driver who was sacked whilst in the midst of a long and painful recovery from major back surgery. The operation was serious enough to require the driver’s post-surgical treatment in a high dependency unit for three days. For months afterwards he required his wife’s help in climbing stairs and many of the most basic activities of daily life.…