Cases - Robert Wilcock v The Guinness Partnership

Record details

Name

Robert Wilcock v The Guinness Partnership

Date

[2019]

Citation

UKUT 146 (LC)

Keywords

Service charges – whether a variable service charge – construction of service charge provision

Summary

The appellant tenant held a weekly assured tenancy of a flat contained in a building of 8 other flats.

A fly tipping problem had arisen whereby items of bulk waste were regularly being discarded in the car park, which formed part of the common parts that the respondent landlord was responsible for maintaining. The landlord took steps to remove the waste and sought to recover the costs of doing so through the service charge.

The landlord had covenanted to ‘provide the services in connection with the Premises which are itemised in the attached schedule for which the Tenant shall pay a Service Charge. (a) The Service charge will be variable…’. The relevant schedule did not include the removal of bulk waste.

The tenant contended that the service charge provisions in his lease did not allow the landlord to recover the costs of bulk waste collection as it was not one of the named services in the relevant schedule.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found in favour of the landlord. The FTT determined that the tenancy agreement provided for a variable service charge. The landlord was entitled to charge for bulk waste in addition to those services specified within the original tenancy agreement.

On appeal, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) found that the tenancy agreement could not be read as entitling the landlord to add to the scheduled services, for which a service charge could be made, by including items that were not previously on the list. Although the tenancy agreement did state that the service charge would be variable, what was contemplated was a variation in the amount payable by way of service charges to reflect the variation in costs in providing the services already specified in the relevant schedule.

The appeal was allowed.