header-logo header-logo

Counting the costs in the LVT

07 April 2011 / Alexander Bastin , Janice Northover
Issue: 7460 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Alexander Bastin & Janice Northover examine the costs-related traps that await the unwary in the LVT

Those who practice regularly in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) should be familiar with what follows, but those who do not spend much time there would be well advised to consider it carefully if they wish to avoid some of the costs-related traps that await them.

Origins of the LVT

The LVT is a non-departmental public body established to determine various types of residential leasehold property disputes. The LVT grew out of the Rent Assessment Committees (created to determine rents under the Rent Acts) and gained ever greater jurisdiction with the passing of the Housing Act 1980 (leasehold enfranchisement), the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (reasonableness of service charges), the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 (appointment of a manager), the Leasehold Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 (collective enfranchisement) and the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) (payability of service charges, administration charges and the no fault right to manage).

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll