Lennon v Ground Rents (Regisport) Ltd

Leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) – Transfer of question by county court – Para 3 of Schedule 12 to Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – Claim by respondent against appellant for unpaid service charges and administrative charges – County court making order under para 3 referring question to LVT as to reasonableness of sum charged for insurance – LVT purporting to decide other issues also – Whether LVT exceeding jurisdiction – Appeal allowedThe appellant held a long lease of a first-floor flat from the respondent landlord. In county court proceedings, the respondent claimed £624, plus interest, from the appellant by way of outstanding service and administrative charges. By his defence, the appellant disputed the reasonableness of that part of the charge that related to an insurance premium, contended that he should be given credit for certain sums he claimed to have paid already towards the insurance and disputed his liability for certain items of administrative charge.After hearing representations from the parties, the county court made an order, under para 3 of Schedule 12 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, transferring a question to the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) as to the reasonableness of the sum charged for insurance. The LVT determined that matter in favour of the appellant, holding that a lesser amount was properly chargeable in respect of insurance.The LVT then decided the other issues in the case against the appellant, rejecting his contention that he had already paid part of the insurance sum and finding that the disputed items of administrative charge had been reasonably incurred and properly chargeable to the service charge account.The appellant appealed. He contended that the LVT had lacked jurisdiction to determine more than the specific question that had been transferred to it by the county court order, namely the reasonableness of the insurance sum. In support of the LVT’s decision, the respondent submitted that, on a proper construction of para 3(1), any transfer to the LVT had to include so much of the proceedings as fell within the LVT’s jurisdiction.Decision: The appeal was allowed. Although either party could have made a separate application to the LVT to decide disputed matters regarding service charge or administrative charge, or could have requested that the LVT dispense with the formalities of such a written application and extend the scope of the hearing in that manner, neither had done so. It followed that the only way in which the LVT was seized of the matter was by virtue of the county court order. The transfer order was in limited terms and did not confer jurisdiction on the LVT to decide all points that would, supposing a proper application had been made to it, have been within the LVT’s jurisdiction. The county court order transferred only the determination of the reasonableness of the sum charged for insurance. It did not transfer any question regarding whether the appellant was entitled to credit to payments made against the insurance premium or whether any administrative charges were properly payable.The county court was not limited to either transferring nothing to the LVT or transferring everything that could be within the LVT’s jurisdiction. In proceedings before a county court, several questions might fall for determination, each of which separately fell within the LVT’s jurisdiction. Where several questions arose that were potentially within its jurisdiction, the court might conclude, for good reason, that one or more of the questions should be transferred to the LVT but that others should be retained by the county court. Had the discretion been intended to be an “all or nothing” power, the statutory provisions would have made that clear; they did not and the power was not so circumscribed. Accordingly, the LVT had lacked jurisdiction to decide any point beyond the reasonableness of the insurance sum and its decision should be quashed so far as it decided other points.The appellant appeared in person; Stephen Murch (instructed by BTMK Solicitors, of Southend) appeared for the respondent.Sally Dobson, barrister