I have been asked this question alot in the last few days. I wish I could answer it with some certainty. Agreed, there are more grey areas surrounding intention when dealing with S.20, but we should not mistake this for flexibility in the requirement to undertake the full consulation to the letter of the law. That being the case I cannot see how the Daejan outcome would reduce the impact of Phillips.
Having said that, no one is entirely clear as to what will constitute correct interpretation of Phillips by the LVTs. Early signs still suggest that the expectation is that nothing less than a boiler plate approach will suffice. If you miss a trick your client will be penalised and unable to recover the excess over the £250 limit per flat. Some poor souls are going to have to find out the hard way before we are all clear on what the exact process needs to be. I do not anticipate a 'flexible' approach from the panels.
One light on the horizon is a change to the threshold - Baroness Gardner of Parkes has proposed, by amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently in the Lords, a move to £330 before S.20 kicks in (remember the threshold has changed only once in nearly 30 years, the net effect of inflation meaning that leaseholders get to pay for more and more consultations as time goes by). The Baroness has further proposed some exclusions for essential and unforseen fire safety works, urgent repairs and securitry matters. Let us hope that these very sensible suggestions are adopted.
Landlords may take heart from the Daejan outcome but, whilst I believe that the outcome is a just one, it does not in any way change the requirement to undertake all stages of the consultation fully. Save for manifest error I would not be rerlying on it making life any easier for agents or their customers.
Come on - it really is time to revisit the whole process which remains clunky, expensive to administer, confusing for flat owners and vaguer than ever as a result of Phillips. Who exactly is being served here? The LVTs are awash with reasonableness tests and will soon be flooded with S.20 challenges.
As I have always said, the more complex the law, the more loopholes for the unscrupulous...
Having said that, no one is entirely clear as to what will constitute correct interpretation of Phillips by the LVTs. Early signs still suggest that the expectation is that nothing less than a boiler plate approach will suffice. If you miss a trick your client will be penalised and unable to recover the excess over the £250 limit per flat. Some poor souls are going to have to find out the hard way before we are all clear on what the exact process needs to be. I do not anticipate a 'flexible' approach from the panels.
One light on the horizon is a change to the threshold - Baroness Gardner of Parkes has proposed, by amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently in the Lords, a move to £330 before S.20 kicks in (remember the threshold has changed only once in nearly 30 years, the net effect of inflation meaning that leaseholders get to pay for more and more consultations as time goes by). The Baroness has further proposed some exclusions for essential and unforseen fire safety works, urgent repairs and securitry matters. Let us hope that these very sensible suggestions are adopted.
Landlords may take heart from the Daejan outcome but, whilst I believe that the outcome is a just one, it does not in any way change the requirement to undertake all stages of the consultation fully. Save for manifest error I would not be rerlying on it making life any easier for agents or their customers.
Come on - it really is time to revisit the whole process which remains clunky, expensive to administer, confusing for flat owners and vaguer than ever as a result of Phillips. Who exactly is being served here? The LVTs are awash with reasonableness tests and will soon be flooded with S.20 challenges.
As I have always said, the more complex the law, the more loopholes for the unscrupulous...
Surely the LVT will also find itself deluged with applications for dispensation as a result of Phillips v Francis? 18 of the 22 flats on my block are sublet and being compelled to invite 'rogue landlords' to tender for works (as leaseholders) when I've had to involve the local authority in getting some of them to adequately repair and maintain the inside is totally ludicrous!
ReplyDeleteBut then when has the cross-over of the PRS into the leasehold sector ever been taken into serious consideration?
I agree Sharon. Investors and owner occupiers needs are not always aligned and this Judgement does not help that situation. I am reasonably confident however that it will be reversed at some point and that the resultant hiatus will be a temporary one. I just cannot say how long.
ReplyDelete