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.

Employment v Self-Employment – This is Why the Distinction Really Matters

Employment law has moved on in leaps and bounds since the bad old days of mass casual labour. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision showed, a large number of people still go to work every day without any clear idea of whether they are employed or self-employed, or any understanding of why that distinction matters. The case concerned a van driver who worked for the same company (C1) for about 17 years before it was taken over by another (C2). The latter accepted that it was obliged by…

ET Lay Member’s LinkedIn Posts Give Rise to Allegation of Apparent Bias

Anyone who serves in a judicial capacity must exercise the greatest care in their use of social media. The point was made by the case of a lay member of an Employment Tribunal (ET) whose posts on LinkedIn gave rise to an allegation of apparent bias. The member was one of an ET panel of three which upheld a woman’s complaints of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal against her former employer. The company was ordered to pay her more than £86,000 in…

Poultry Workers Not Entitled to NMW for Travel to Farms

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that poultry workers were not ‘working’ while travelling from their homes to farms where they carried out their duties and back again, and were not entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) for the time spent travelling. The employees worked on poultry farms around the country. Their employer provided a minibus to collect them from their home addresses each day and take them to the first farm, and take them home again from the last farm.…