Case Study: The Dodgy Dates

We were asked to act in respect of a flat in East London, where the leaseholder had passed away and his children, as executors, were unwilling to give up on a dispute their father had fought for many years. We identified several issues including:

• Breach of the consultation requirements. The landlord stipulated a 29-day notice period, whereas the statute requires a 30-day notice period.
• Breach of the ‘18-month Rule’. Costs incurred in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 were not demanded until 2005. The purported notice served by the landlord on the tenants in this circumstance did not meet the statutory requirements.
• Breach of the ‘6-year Rule’ under section 19 Limitation Act 1980.
• Reasonableness of the sums charged for cleaning/caretaking
• Management fees

Persuaded by our arguments, the Local Authority landlord agreed to our client’s advantage the first three items, before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearing
took place.

The remaining two issues related to matters of fact. We didn’t want our client to pay unnecessary professional fees, so we suggested that our client’s son represent our client before the Tribunal on these issues. He succeeded on both points.