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.

Unfairly Dismissed? You Must Take Reasonable Steps to Mitigate Your Loss

Those who are unfairly dismissed are required to take reasonable steps to mitigate their financial loss, usually by hunting for a new job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in the case of a woman who made not one application for fresh employment in the three years after she was sacked. The woman, who worked for a financial services company, launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings after she was dismissed, purportedly on grounds of redundancy. Following a liability…

Employer Pays Price for ‘Abject’ Failures in Disciplinary Process

Dismissing an employee for misconduct without first engaging in a transparent and fair disciplinary process is the legal equivalent of holding a gun to your head. In a case on point, an Employment Tribunal (ET) did not mince words in publicly exposing an employer’s abject procedural failures. A gas engineer who had risen to a senior management role in the company for which he worked was summoned to a meeting on his return from a business trip. He was informed that a client had complained about…

High Court Delves into Social History to Resolve Widow’s Asbestos Claim

Many people are still being carried off by merciless cancer due to asbestos exposure in the dim and distant past. As a High Court ruling showed, it is the very passage of time that makes it so hard for their loved ones to obtain compensation. The case concerned a former plasterer who died, aged 72, from mesothelioma – an incurable form of cancer that commonly takes decades to develop and can be caused by breathing in a single asbestos fibre. His widow launched a personal injury claim against a…