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.

Locum Consultant Not Entitled to Permanent Contract

Under Regulation 8 of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, employees who have worked continuously for four years or more under a series of fixed-term contracts automatically become permanent employees unless the renewal of their employment on a fixed-term contract was objectively justified. Recently, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether such justification applied in the case of a locum consultant. The consultant was employed by…

Time Limits in Employment Cases – Any Delay Could Stymie Your Claim

Time limits are strictly applied in employment cases and any failure to abide by them can place even an otherwise meritorious claim in real jeopardy. That was certainly so in the case of a call centre worker who lodged a sexual harassment complaint a single day later than she should have done. Following a hearing, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the woman had, on three separate occasions, been sexually harassed by her line manager. He had, amongst other things, pulled her waist during a…

Employment Judge’s Interventions Gave Rise to Apparent Bias – EAT Ruling

Judges are entitled to robustly manage the cases that come before them, but what they cannot do is give even an impression that they are taking sides. In a case on point, an employment judge’s interventions during a hotly contested hearing were found to have crossed the line into apparent bias. Following a hearing, which was held via video link during the COVID-19 pandemic, the employment judge upheld an office administrator’s complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. The employer challenged…