[2024] UKUT 80 (LC)

As I said above the flats are held on 999-year leases; leases were originally granted in 1977 for 125 years but in 2021 the members of the appellant resolved to grant themselves 999 year terms; Mr Atherden’s extended lease was granted on 20 June 2020. It incorporates the terms of the original lease, which I have not seen, but it is not in dispute that it contains covenants by the landlord to maintain the property and service charge provisions which require the tenant to reimburse the landlord’s expenditure.

Each lease requires the leaseholder to pay a slightly different proportion of the landlord’s expenditure; the total adds up to 100% and there is no dispute about that apportionment.

This is not a big property. The appellant is a limited company owned and managed by its shareholders of whom Mr Atherden is one. Leaseholders who are, together, their own landlord have to find a way to carry out day-to-day management of the building, which is probably not a huge daily chore but obviously involves keeping up with maintenance which at times is onerous. There is of course extensive legislation that provides decision-making procedures for limited companies, but this company like others in similar situations is run on a sensibly informal basis by its shareholders and it appears from the material I have seen that they take decisions by email.

Mr David Bingham is referred to in the FTT’s decision as the company secretary; the resolution to grant the extended lease, and the new lease itself, indicate that he or was at that stage a director of the appellant together with another leaseholder, Mr Nicholas Bingham. Mr David Bingham (“Mr Bingham” from now on) has taken on the task of co-ordinating maintenance; unlike the Mr Atherden who has let his flat, Mr Bingham lives at the property and has given a lot of his time and effort in its upkeep.

These proceedings have the feel of a dispute between Mr Atherden, who made the application to the FTT, and Mr Bingham; but that is not the case. Mr Bingham is an officer of the landlord company, but is himself no more and no less the landlord than is Mr Atherden together with the other individual lessees. If the landlord suffers a shortfall in the recovery of service charges that is a problem for Mr Atherden as much as for all the other leaseholders.