James Naylor examines a landmark landlord & tenant decision
Alarms have been sounded after the decision in May of the Upper Tribunal in Beitov Properties Ltd v Elliston Martin [2012] UKUT 133 (LC), which potentially renders a large proportion of service charge demands invalid, due to a straightforward mis-construction of s 47(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
Statutory wording
Section 47(1) reads as follows: “(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, and (b) if that address is not in England and Wales, an address in England and Wales at which notices (including notices in proceedings) may be served on the landlord by the tenant.”
Section 47(4) provides that “demand” means a demand for rent or other sums payable to the landlord under the terms of the tenancy (including, therefore, a service charge). Section 47(2) states that where any demand for a service charge does not contain the information required by s 47(1), the
