Harry Johnson, June Johnson & others v County Bideford Ltd [2012] UKUT 457 (LC)

The lessees owned leases of holiday chalets in Bideford, Devon. In 2008 the freehold of the chalet park passed to a new owner, County Bideford Ltd.

County Bideford appointed a management company, the imaginatively named County Bideford (Management) Ltd, to manage the park. On 01 October 2008, Mr Kyriacou of the management company wrote to the lessees introducing the landlord by name and giving an email contact address.

Service charge demands followed. They contained only the management company’s name and address.

The landlord subsequently had cause to make an application to the LVT under s.27A of the 1985 Act for a determination as to the payability of service charges. The three accounting years at issue were 2007/8, 2008/9 and 2009/10.

The application resulted in two hearings before the LVT.

At the first hearing, the LVT determined whether the disputed costs fell within the meaning of reasonable for the purposes of s.19 of the 1985 Act. It made a number of reductions, which were identified on a schedule annexed to its determination.

At that hearing however, the issue of compliance with s.47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 also arose. These are the excerpts of s.47 relevant in this case:

(1) Where any written demand is given to a tenant of premises to which this Part applies, the demand must contain the following information, namely–

(a) The name and address of the landlord…

(2) Where–

(a) a tenant of any such premises is given such a demand, but

(b) it does not contain any information required to be contained in it by virtue of subsection (1)

then…any part of the amount demanded which consists of a service charge or an administration charge…shall be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before that information is furnished by the landlord by notice given to the tenant…

(4) In this section ‘demand’ means a demand for rent or other sums payable to the landlord under the terms of the tenancy.

At that first hearing, it was accepted by the landlord that, even though the lessees who had received the letter of 01 October 2008 knew who the landlord was, the service charge demands did not comply with s.47, containing as they did only the name and address of the management company.

The LVT accordingly decided that, notwithstanding its determination that certain of the costs incurred were s.19 reasonable, the service charges were not payable. It also made an order under s.20C, preventing the landlord from putting the costs of the application through the service charge.

Further demands were served on the lessees on 08 June 2011 and, at a second hearing, the LVT determined that the service charge demands for the earlier years complied with s.47 and had been duly served and were payable. Presumably the 08 June 2011 demand had contained the landlord’s name and address.

The lessees appealed. Their appeal was met by a cross-appeal by the landlord.

Section 47, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

The grounds on which permission were granted were the following:

For the lessees – whether a service charge which does not comply with s.47 can be a valid demand.

For the landlord – whether the LVT had been correct to make a s.20C order.

Section 20B(1), Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

• If not, has the landlord, within eighteen months of incurring the costs, notified the tenant that those costs have been incurred and that the tenant will subsequently be required under the terms of the lease to contribute to them by way of service charge?

Section 20B(2), Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.