Heron Maple House Ltd v Central Estates Ltd
Series: Estates Gazette Law Reports ; [2002] 13 EG 102-106(5)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: CLCC 21 December 2001. The claimant H was freehold owner of a large building that contained, on its upper floors, a mixture of office, domestic and commercial accommodation. The domestic accommodation contained a number of flats. The defendant (C) held a headlease of the plant room,lifts, flats and the hallways, staircases and roof of the building. The part 20 defendants, Camden LBC held an underlease of substantially the same premises as demised by the headlease. Camden had demised the flats to individual occupier tenants. Both leases contained service charge clauses. In 1999 H carried out repairs, and contended that £17665 was due from the tenants. C had not produced estimates or a consultation exercise required by Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s20. H contended this was the first time they had heard of the works, or their cost, and sought a declaration that section 20 did not apply. Both Central and Camden argued that as the demised properties contained flats, section 20 did apply. "Held", section 20 applied to the tenancies created by the headlease and underlease respectively.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS65271 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 117353-1001 |
CLCC 21 December 2001. The claimant H was freehold owner of a large building that contained, on its upper floors, a mixture of office, domestic and commercial accommodation. The domestic accommodation contained a number of flats. The defendant (C) held a headlease of the plant room,lifts, flats and the hallways, staircases and roof of the building. The part 20 defendants, Camden LBC held an underlease of substantially the same premises as demised by the headlease. Camden had demised the flats to individual occupier tenants. Both leases contained service charge clauses. In 1999 H carried out repairs, and contended that £17665 was due from the tenants. C had not produced estimates or a consultation exercise required by Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s20. H contended this was the first time they had heard of the works, or their cost, and sought a declaration that section 20 did not apply. Both Central and Camden argued that as the demised properties contained flats, section 20 did apply. "Held", section 20 applied to the tenancies created by the headlease and underlease respectively.