- Wrong payment date invalidated service charge demand (H Stain v Richmond)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the lease say?
- What was the issue in dispute?
- What did the UT decide?
- Case details
Property analysis: In H Stain Ltd v Richmond¸ the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) held that a service charge demand issued to a residential leaseholder was invalid. The lease required at least one month’s notice to be given in relation to advance service charge contribution demands. The payment due date in the demand was a few days short and this was fatal to the validity. Accordingly, the tenant was not liable for the sums demanded. Written by Jessica Parry, senior associate at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial