Subscribe to access our searchable archive.
Login


Join Now
Forgot your password?
Search

Contact Us

Download Print Send a summary of this page to someone via email.
We welcome your feedback. If you have any comments, feedback, suggestions or would like help with your order please contact us at the details shown below:

Address: One Great Cumberland Place
Marble Arch
London W1H 7AL
United Kingdom
Tel: 08700 600 663
Fax: 08700 600 664
E-mail: enquiries@lvtbulletin.com

Latest Articles

  London Borough of Camden v The leaseholders of 37 flats at Grafton Way
Jul 17, 2008

The London Borough of Camden (“Camden”) embarked on a major works project to inter alia, properties on Grafton Way. he works were such as to require Camden to consult the leaseholders in accordance with the provisions of s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended). Camden failed to comply with the consultation requirements.
  Auger and others v London Borough of Camden
May 2, 2008
Camden had applied to the LVT seeking an order under s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985permitting them to dispense with various aspects of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003. wished to enter into a “Partnering Agreement” and a “Framework Agreement.”
  Eltham Properties Limited v Kenny and others
Jan 22, 2008
In the course of a service charge dispute before the LVT, the respondents had argued that the appellant had not complied with the consultation provisions contained in s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985...
  Re: Blocks 5-15, 17-28, 29-40, 41-52 Carters Close
Apr 24, 2007
The applicant was a representative of the tenant’s management company. It sought dispensation from the provisions of the consultation requirements contained in s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to arrange for the removal and disposal of asbestos insulation from various blocks of flats on the estate.
  Hadayah v London Borough of Camden
Oct 20, 2006
The applicant challenged his liability for service charges based on a major works scheme. He contended that he had not received a s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 notice.
  Circle Anglia v 7071 rented properties owned by Circle Anglia
Sep 25, 2006
The applicant intended to enter into a contract for the supply of electricity and gas to its properties. The tendering process was a rapid one, with the result that the applicant could not comply with the s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 process, as the suppliers were not prepared to wait whilst that process was completed.
  London Borough of Greenwich v All leaseholders in Greenwich
Jul 25, 2006
The London Borough of Greenwich sought dispensation from the consultation requirements contained in s20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of a plan to purchase all of its gas supplies from one supplier for a period of 2 years.
  London Borough of Ealing v All Leaseholder Tenants of
Jun 19, 2006
The applicant sought dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by s20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Ealing proposed to enter into framework agreements with a number of contractors to cover their works for the next four to six years and to bring their properties into line with the Decent Homes Standard.
  London Borough of Enfield v All long leaseholders
May 5, 2006
Enfield applied for dispensation with the s20 consultation requirements. In 2003 it had decided to put out to tender six maintenance contracts. Notice was placed in the Official Journal of the European Communities, as required and, ultimately, a contractor was chosen with the contract to start on 1 April 2004.
  G&O Investments v Granfield Investments
May 3, 2006
The applicant landlord had been unaware of the changes to the consultation regulations that occurred on 31 October 2003 and had been following the old procedure. It was the LVT that had first noticed this issue and had invited the applicants to apply for dispensation.
  Auchterloine v Milton Keynes Council
Nov 21, 2005
The dispute concerned remedial works to balconies. During the course of the remedial works, it became clear that further, more extensive works would be necessary. The Defendant authorised those works to go ahead and purported merely to vary the existing contract.
  London Borough of Barnet v Leaseholders in Barnet,
Oct 28, 2005
The applicant sought to dispense with the consultation requirements under s.20. There were over 3,200 respondents, all of who were informed of the case.
 
more articles >>