Wrong Payment Date Invalidated Service Charge Demand (H Stain V Richmond)

Summary

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.

What are the practical implications of this case?

There has been plenty of litigation about the validity of notices. At first blush, the decisions can seem conflicting and confusing.

The case highlights that whether minor errors are fatal to notices often comes down to the lease wording. In particular, have the specific pre-requisites for a valid notice been met? If not, the Mannai (Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749) 'reasonable recipient' test will not help cure minor defects