T: 01273 761 990 E: info@helix-law.com

Commercial, Employment and Property Solicitors

NOTE: This website uses cookies.

By browsing this website or dismissing this banner you are consenting to their use. Learn more

I understand

Cookies Policy

We use cookies on our website. By using our website you agree to this Policy and you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with the terms of this Policy.

About Cookies

A cookie is a small file which asks permission to be placed on your computer’s hard drive. Once you agree, the file is added and the cookie helps analyse web traffic or lets you know when you visit a particular site. Cookies allow web applications to respond to you as an individual. The web application can tailor its operations to your needs, likes and dislikes by gathering and remembering information about your preferences.

There are two main kinds of cookies: “session” cookies and “persistent” cookies. Session cookies only last for the duration of users using the website and are deleted from your computer when you close your browser, whereas persistent cookies outlast user sessions and remain stored on your computer until deleted, or until they reach their expiry date.

Cookies on this Website

We use Session Cookies and Persistent Cookies on this website.

We use cookies for the following purposes:

  • to recognise your computer when you visit our website;
  • to improve the website’s usability;
  • to administer this website.

Generally, we use cookies to help us administer this website, to improve the website’s usability. We may also use cookies to identify which pages are being used. This helps us analyse data about web page traffic and improve our website in order to tailor it to customer needs. We only use this information for statistical analysis purposes and then the data is removed from the system.

Overall, cookies help us provide you with a better website, by enabling us to monitor which pages you find useful and which you do not.

Cookies do not contain any information that personally identifies you, a cookie in no way gives us access to your computer or any information about you.

We are committed to ensuring that your information is secure. In order to prevent unauthorised access or disclosure we have put in place suitable physical, electronic and managerial procedures to safeguard and secure the information we collect on-line.

You can choose to accept or decline cookies. Most web browsers automatically accept cookies, but you can usually modify your browser setting to decline cookies if you prefer. This may prevent you from taking full advantage of the website.

Third Party Cookies

When you use our website, you may also be sent third party cookies.

Third party cookies may be used for the following purposes:

  • to track your browser across multiple websites;
  • to build a profile of your web surfing;
  • to target advertisements which may be of particular interest to you.

In addition, we use Google Analytics to analyse the use of this website. Google Analytics generates statistical and other information about website use by means of cookies, which are stored on users' computers.  The information generated relating to our website is used to create reports about the use of the website. Google will store and use this information. Google's privacy policy is available at www.google.com/privacypolicy.html.

Most browsers allow you to reject all cookies, whilst some browsers allow you to reject just third party cookies.

This website cookies policy is based on a free document supplied by The Legal Stop Limited through its website www.thelegalstop.co.uk.

Residential landlord recovers majority of costs despite failure to consult over works

A residential landlord who failed in his duty to consult before carrying out works did not automatically lose the right to recover the whole costs of those works from its tenants because of the failure. He was required to compensate them only to the extent they had been prejudiced by the failure.

Under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, residential landlords who carry out works cannot recover more than £250 from each tenant through their service charges unless they have consulted with the tenants or the Lands Valuation Tribunal has granted dispensation from doing so.

A landlord of a residential block failed to consult correctly with the five tenants before carrying out major works costing £270,000. It tried to recover the whole cost from the tenants through their service charges. The Land Valuation Tribunal (LVT) and the Court of Appeal both ruled that the landlord's failure to consult meant it could only recover the statutory minimum of £250 from each tenant – a total of £1,250. The landlord argued that the LVT should have exercised its discretion to dispense with the requirement to consult.

The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the requirement to consult is to stop tenants being prejudiced, for instance because the proposed works are inappropriate, or the tenants are in danger of being overcharged. Failure to consult was not a prejudice in itself, even if it was a deliberate and major failure.

The LVT should have considered the extent to which the failure had prejudiced the tenants when deciding the extent to which the landlord could recover the service charges from them.

In this case, the only prejudice to tenants from the failure to consult was that they had not had the opportunity to propose a different, cheaper contractor. If they had, it was possible the costs would have been less, but not by much. In fact, the landlord had already offered to reduce the tenants' service charge liabilities by £50,000. The Supreme Court said this more than covered any reduction in costs that the tenants could have achieved had there been a consultation.

As a result of the Supreme Court overturning the earlier rulings, the landlord eventually recovered around £230,000. The court also made clear it was open to the LVT to make dispensations from the requirement to consult subject to conditions. These could include a condition that landlords pay their tenants' legal costs of applying for a dispensation and ordered the landlord to do so.


Landlords subject to the obligation to consult before carrying out works should ensure they do so, or risk being unable to recover the full extent of their costs from tenants.


Case ref: Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14


Jonathan Waters
is the founder of Helix Law. Before qualifying as a Solicitor he worked in industry and in investment banking for over a decade. He was also the Partner in charge of Commercial Litigation, Employment Law and Property Litigation at Stephen Rimmer LLP. Jonathan has wide experience of helping and advising businesses to avoid or to deal with commercial disputes and in particular construction disputes. 

Contact Us

This article is written to raise awareness of the issues it discusses and it may not be updated after it is first written, even if the law changes. It is not intended to be legal advice and cannot be relied on as such. Helix Law is not responsible or liable for any action taken or not taken as a result of  this article. If you think the matters set out affect you and you wish to apply them to your particular circumstances then we are happy to give you free initial telephone advice. 

Contact Helix Law on 01273 761 990 or email info@helix-law.com

T: 01273 761 990
E: info@helix-law.com

Helix LawHelix Law Limited is a limited liability company registered in England and Wales. Registration Number 07845461. A list of Directors is available for inspection at the Registered Office: 1 Frederick Terrace, Brighton, BN1 1AX. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.