• 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 / Latest News / Phillips v Francis … Pity the poor park home owners

Phillips v Francis … Pity the poor park home owners

October 15, 2014 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

PhillipsvFrancis

By Martin Boyd

Yesterday the law case credited with making the leasehold property management virtually impossible – Phillips and Goddard v Francis – was finally presented in the Court of Appeal.

The case concerns leaseholders of 97 holiday chalets at Point Curlew, near Padstow in Cornwell – now called Atlantic Bays Holiday Park –  in dispute with their landlord over what constitutes qualifying works in a service charge subject to s20 consultation.

Sitting in judgment were the Master or the Roles Lord Dyson, the Chancellor of the High Court Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice (David) Kitchin presiding.

And the case is sufficient importance for the Government to seek and be granted permission to intervene: ie to assist the Court in its important deliberations. In other words, the state felt it needed to intervene in the public interest because of the way the previous judgment had determined how such costs should be considered..

The reason the government and the sector had become so concerned is that the previous court’s decision has been considered to amount to a requirement to consult on any works which cumulatively might come to more than £250.

A very good analysis of that decision comes from solicitor Nicholas Kissen, of the Leasehold Advisory Service, can be found here.

PhillipsvFrancisresidentsSome had seen the lower court’s decision as meaning that any landlord intending to issue a service charge that amounted to more than £250 might need to follow the s20 consultation procedure imposing both more costs and raising the possibility of overwhelming the tribunal with applications for dispensation.

Inevitably at this level, matters are never going to be simple and both sides were represented by two sets of bewigged lawyers, with the state adding a further wig into the proceedings.

The arguments from both sides make clear there is no simple answer.

A long debate took place about what might be deemed to be “sets” of works, and whether the judgment under review had intended to imply that “works” was intended to mean something different to the day-to-day provision of services.

Both sides made clear they believed the previous High Court decision had issues they did not fully support, and both seemed to accept that any implication in the decision which suggested day-to-day expenditure be included within the £250 limit was wrong.

Anyone expecting a conclusive argument from either side would have been disappointed, and we will need to wait for the judge’s findings to see who won.

The assertion was made during the hearing that there had been much analysis of the previous decision. Both parties were asked to provide a bundle of articles which pointed to the sector’s concerns, which will hopefully include those of Nicholas Kissin and and those from Estates Gazette.

That matters have gone so far as to require the intervention of the state is obviously pretty serious.

The leaseholders who began this action would have had no that their dispute would move on from Cornwall to the second highest court in the land.

Martin Francis, the landlord, does not emerge as a character of virtue. In the recent case of Dowding and Church v Matchmove, Judge McCahill concluded:

“ … I regret to say that Mr Francis has lied at various stages in his evidence and I can place little or no reliance on his evidence unless it is supported by other credible evidence.”

From the leaseholders’ side things have not run smoothly, either.

PhillipsvFrancisKnapperIn June, The Western Morning News had the headline “Judge ruled solicitor misled court over Cornish chalet fees dispute”.

This has resulted in a second appeal being heard over costs. More here:

What is clear from the lower court decision in Phillips and Goddard v Francis is that lots of lawyers considered the legal view of what in the real world is mostly a surveying matter about what constitutes separate work, or works.

Adding yet another layer of complexity to the case, it appears that the Point Curlew site used to be owned by a tenant management company and was sold to the current landlord in 2008.

As always, the only real winners in the case will be the lawyers.

The landlord now knows he is under intense scrutiny on this site. In the various service charge costs considered in the case some have already been disallowed. The £95,000 paid by the landlord to themselves for their management services was rightly called into question from the very first case.

At yesterday’s hearing one of the 13 sets of major costs raised in the lower courts came under particular review. The strip out and refurbishment of the amenity centre was examioned. Consideration was given on the matter of whether sets of works should be considered as one or multiple projects and, therefore, whether issues for a single or multiple s20 consultation.

While these cases may well end up costing the leaseholders a considerable amount of money in legal bills, it may well cost even more to Mr Francis and his wife (the site appears to be a family concern).

As for the state’s involvement? An uncomplementary version might be: if we did not get the words quite right in the Act, could the courts consider what they were meant to be based on Hansard and the consultation document of the time.

We will not know until the judges have pondered the matter whether they are minded to accept such an argument.

What worries the government and the leasehold management sector is that if the wrong decision is made we could face many problems.

There may being no option but to amend legislation so that it says what Parliament had intended.

Related posts:

Phillips v Francis decision APPG to protect park home owners has as secretariat the site owners’ own trade body! Park home owners: government action better than expected (well, that’s sort-of positive) Park Home champion Sonia McColl OBE has her mobile home stolen … ‘after death threats’ Park home champion Sonia McColl OBE thanks all for help over stolen home

Category: Latest News, News, Property tribunalTag: Atlantic Bays Holiday Park, Court of Appeal, Lord Dyson, Lord Justice David Kitchin, Martin Francis, Master of the Rolls, Nicholas Kissen, Phillips Goddard v Francis, Phillips v Francis, Point Curlew, Sir Terence Etherton

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 (39) 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 (47) 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: « Council of Mortgage Lenders urged to help LKP end forfeiture
Next Post: Feeble talk from CMA at ARMA conference »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. AM

    October 16, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Well the old 74 Act and the 85 Act, even pre-amendment by CLRA were hardly an example of clarity on when the old “per flat or per block” trigger amounts were, well, triggered. That said based on the old decision, the principles established therein were not in any real way inconsistent with the 2002 wording; defining what works are related or unrelated are usually easily distinguished and, moreover could any reasonable person construe the wording to limit expenses to £250 in any period before consultation.The reasoning that this is not a practical obstacle or to roll over expenses to another period was bizarre bordering on the comical.

  2. martin

    October 25, 2014 at 8:35 am

    Decision due next week

    28th October 10:30AM

    FINAL DECISIONS

    A3/2013/0818 Phillips & Anr (suing on behalf of themselves and other owners of 97 Holiday Chalets at Point Curfew, St Merryn, Padstow, Cornwall) -v- Francis & Anr.

    Another review of the hearing can also be found here

    http://www.tayloremmet.co.uk/blsblog/guest-blog-phillips-v-francis/

    The speculation that ” The Court of Appeal will no doubt overturn the controversial decision and revert to the prior position.” is perhaps a little speculative. The outcome may be more subtle.

    The judges asked both parties to provide evidence after the hearing to show that the sector had been universally critical of the previous decision..

  3. martin

    October 28, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    We are told by the leaseholders a draft judgement was handed down today and we understand will be finalised by the end of the week.

    A copy of the final decision will be posted here

    http://curlew.org.uk/

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