• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / News / Property tribunal / LVT: the things they never tell you

LVT: the things they never tell you

March 13, 2012 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

and the things they never tell you.

This is the first in a series of articles designed to help leaseholders (always called tenants in the law) to understand (leasehold) law, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) and the “low cost” legal system intended to resolve issues arising on many aspects of leasehold law. Unfortunately there are no definitive sources of information for tenants on how to go to the LVT, and this series of articles is intended to fill in some of the gaps left by LEASE, the LVT and various books which help guide the reader through the process. We will try to outline some of the difficulties you may face, some of the things you need to know and some of the tactics the landlord may try to use against you and to then offer some tips and hints on how to meet these challenges.

Are you missing £630 Million pounds?

We would have liked to start this series with some statistics about the LVT but sadly the Department of Communities (DCLG) which overseas leasehold legislation advises that both they and the LVT do not hold the data which you might want to know about. The LVT do have statistics on the number of cases heard in each region, and their own costs but no statistics on case outcomes or make-up.

The only real option to date has been to look at the decisions on a case by case basis. After some initial research LKP is now able to make its first estimates based on a sample of this years LVT cases. The results show:

  • Approximately 80-90% of cases which go to the LVT are taken by tenants and only about 10-20% by landlords. The exception to the normal rule of tenants taking the action appears to be a growing trend of landlords seeking to establish their entitlement to charge for a set of proposed major works. This recent change may in turn have followed on from a decision obliging a landlord to pay a very large amount of money having failed to consult correctly on a set of major works.
  • It also seems from anecdotal evidence tenants are proportionally far more likely to have to give up before they get to court because they either sell their property, run out of resources, become intimidated at the possible costs or feel obliged to reach a deal with the landlord, which may mean that over 90% of cases may be being taken by tenants.
  • Other than in the very small sites of less than 5 or perhaps 10 flats, it seems that in over 85% of cases landlords are legally represented. Sometimes with a solicitor but in many cases with both a solicitor and barrister instructed as per the normal court system. There is a clear correlation between case size and representation but even when a single tenant takes a case the landlord sometimes chooses full legal representation.
  • For tenants the level of legal representation is far more variable  with representation in the region of 40% and perhaps up to 50% of cases which may be paid or pro bono. There are certainly many many more instances where tenants are represented by lay members from amongst the residents, even when facing a landlord using a solicitor or both a solicitor and barrister. This perhaps suggests that for system intended as a “lay” court has gone wrong as there is clearly a differential presentation system between landlord and tenant.
  • Even in cases where tenants are represented, that representation comes from a much wider range of barristers rather than that might be described as the more expensive specialist leasehold chambers more often used by landlords.
  • Looking at the data on Right to Manage applications and lease extensions looks more positive. Of course most RTM applications succeed since in most cases this is an automatic right. But we need to looked at the Upper Tribunal data as it appears a reasonable proportion of these cases won by tenants are then appealed to the Upper Tribunal by the landlord. We will report more more on this issue when we have data from the Upper Tribunal.
  • One final statistic. To appeal an LVT decision to the Upper Tribunal it must normally be passed back to the LVT for review from them to consider if they made the right decision. After which if a decision is still not accepted it can be referred to the Upper Tribunal. In 62% of cases adjudicated on by the Upper Tribunal they previously been been refused permission to appeal by the LVT. Which perhaps goes to show that asking someone to judge if their own decisions is not a good idea.

There is the suggestion by some commentators that the number of cases is going up at the LVT because of the recession but there seems no data to support such a claim. It could equally be speculated that the case load at the LVT is going up simply because tenants are becoming more an more aware of their rights through web sites such as Campaign against Residential Leasehold Exploitation and LKP. There certainly seems to be no suggestion the case load is increasing because the government is communicating more effectively with leaseholders about their rights. We assume as more and more sites assert their right to manage, and more sites seem willing to challenge the service charges, the knowledge base amongst tenants keeps improving. Perhaps it is inevitable that challenges will increase rapidly when the LVT is able to boldly conclude that some landlords are passing on to tenants the cost of “onerous” contracts let within the “quasi biblical structure” of their related party companies.

It should be emphasised this is our first attempt to draw out statistics which inevitably have potential for a considerable margin of error. However they at least constitute a first effort which is more than the government has managed ever since the LVT came into being. With 100% confidence we can say our data is likely to be a little more accurate than the Housing Minister’s empty claim of balance even though he has no data. We would argue that drawing any conclusions on the effectiveness of the current legislative system is impossible in the absence of data . The Minister may choose to say the system works but given his lack of data this must be pure speculation.

The one reputable source of data is the Which Magazine which in October 2011 launched its own investigation into service charges. Which calculates that £700 million of excessive fees are being charged each year through leasehold service charges in England and Wales. On average that means that each of  the 1.8 million leasehold properties is being overcharged by £388 per year.

Unfortunately its not possible even when looking at individual LVT decisions to know how much is actually recovered in each case. Taking the apparent LVT case load and a rough approximation of each award case it can be guesstimated that just 5-10% of this £700 million is being recovered.

So we end this article on a less than optimistic note the landlords are maybe keeping over 90% of the monies that are being overcharge each year even though tenants bring 90% of the cases through the LVT. The only way we can think that Grant Shapps the Housing Minister is able to claim this current position represents a fair balance is by refusing to look for the evidence.

It will not surprise anyone to learn that the softest target is the retirement sector. But drawing out those statistics will take a little more work.

For the next article we’ll give an outline of how the LVT system is intended to work and start offering a few hints to counter the tactics some landlords use in opposing the cases. If you have been to the LVT and have any cases you think may be of interest to others please contact us at LKP. If you’ve had a success or a horror story at the LVT then let us know.

Related posts:

‘The system is rigged against leaseholders’ Default ThumbnailShouldn’t this case have been dealt with by a more senior court than the ‘low-cost’ property tribunal? Parliament told the Property Tribunal ‘stinks’: it lets down leaseholders again and again Default ThumbnailLegal Costs – Part II Default ThumbnailDud paperwork, no payment necessary

Category: Property tribunalTag: Property tribunal

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (44) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (39) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (40) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (64) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (200) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (42) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « London Assembly’s report ‘Highly Charged’
Next Post: Seeking stars in the east »

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web