The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) case of Castle Rock 2002 Management Ltd v Jeffery [2014] concerned an apartment block at Castle Rock, highly located and overlooking Woolacombe Bay with uninterrupted views.
The middle ground floor flat was constructed with a wooden-decked balcony with a balustrade.
The lease contained service charge provisions.
The Management Company had carried out the following works but it’s ability to recoup the costs through the service charge was challenged:
1. Works to the decked balcony.
The decking of the balcony and the material immediately below the decking was removed, and a paved patio was installed (“the patio works”).
The patio works were disallowed from service charge recovery by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (“LVT”) because the works were carried out in relation to parts of Castle Rock which were not common parts but were let to individual tenants
2. The removal of a fence and the installation instead of a low retaining wall (“the wall works”).
The costs of the wall works were similarly disallowed because the works were not needed or required to repair or maintain the building or its safety and had in fact been carried out to enhance and improve the views from the building.
The Upper Tribunal said only the surface of floors were let with the flats and there were excluded from the lets “all such parts of the Building as are below the floor surface.” Those words were not limited to excluding from the lets all such parts of the building as were below the floor surface inside the flats. They also excluded all such parts of the building as were below the floor surface of the balconies.
The works which were carried out to Flat 2’s balcony went below the surface of the decked area, and the Flat 3 balcony patio works went below the surface of it’s patio.
So the patio works for both Flat 2 and Flat 3, involved works to the common parts. So the LVT’s reason for disallowing the inclusion of the costs of those works within the service charge was wrong. The costs could be included.
There was nothing before the Upper Tribunal to enable it to conclude that the LVT was wrong in finding that the cost of the wall works was a cost not reasonably incurred. Accordingly, the cost of the wall works was not recoverable from the respondent.
This blog has been posted out of general interest. It does not replace the need to get bespoke legal advice in individual cases.
Original article: Flat balcony works could be recharged as common parts’ cost.