If you are a leaseholder receiving service charge demands relating to cladding or a freeholder or block management company, Bill Dhariwal explores a recent decision that you should read.

Chevron Down

When will a leaseholder not have to pay for cladding remediation under the Building Safety Act?

In a recent decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in the case of Lehner v Lant Street Management Limited (2024) it was found that where:

(a) a lease is a “qualifying lease” under the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) (simply put, a long lease of a single dwelling granted before 14 February 2022, where the tenant is liable to pay service charge and is a tenants only or principal home); and

(b) the service charge includes costs associated with remedying building safety defects, called a “relevant defect” under the BSA.

Protection under Schedule 8 of the BSA applied.  Accordingly, Mr Lehnar and his fellow leaseholders were not required to pay for the costs of cladding remediation via their service charge.

Schedule 8 of the BSA protects leaseholders from any liability to contribute towards the costs of remediation (called “relevant measures”) if the landlord was responsible for the relevant defect.  Remediation costs include professional and legal costs.

If the condition is not met, leaseholders will only have to contribute the “permitted maximum” (presently £15,000 in Greater London and £10,000 elsewhere but significantly higher for leaseholds worth in excess of £1 million).

This case was an appeal from the First Tier Property Tribunal (“FTPT”) and is likely to be relevant to other leaseholder disputes relating to service charge and the costs of cladding remediation post-Grenfell.  In fact, the appendix to the judgment provides detailed guidance on how the FTPT should approach such cases in the future.  

Should you require any further information regarding any aspect of the Building Safety Act, please do not hesitate to contact Mr Bill Dhariwal on DDI: 01489 864 117 or E: bill.dhariwal@lawcomm.co.uk

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice.