header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 May 2010 / Robert Highmore , Malcolm Dowden
Issue: 7418 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

No room for error

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The statutory service charge consultation procedure in a nutshell, by Robert Highmore & Malcolm Dowden

In Daejan Investments v Benson [2009] UKUT 233 (LC) the landlord sought to recover £270,000 from five tenants in respect of work to their building. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) ruled that Daejan had not complied with the statutory consultation requirements for residential service charges under the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987). Consequently, it could claim only £250 from each tenant, recovering £1,250 rather than the £270,000 cost of the works. The Lands Tribunal upheld that ruling, finding that the landlord’s failure to follow the stage 2 consultation process nullified the tenants’ statutory right to make further representations following examination of the estimates obtained by the landlord.

On 20 April 2010, in Paddington Basin Developments v West End Quay Estate Management [2010] All ER (D) 139 (Apr), Lewison J ruled on a preliminary issue against the landlord in a case involving the recovery of more than £1m of service charges. He held

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll