1. A breach tolerated for 37 years: when can enforcement resume?
The facts. In Wasserman v Loyalart Flat Management Company Ltd [2026] UKUT 334 (LC), decided on 28 August 2026, Mrs Wasserman had parked on her block’s forecourt for about 37 years despite a covenant requiring her to park in her garage. The resident-owned freeholder’s meetings in 2013 and 2021 had recorded arrangements for residents to use forecourt spaces. The First-tier Tribunal found that the landlord had waived the breach for a period but considered that bringing proceedings had ended the waiver. [1]
The ruling. The Upper Tribunal rejected the suggestion that long tolerance had permanently released the parking covenant: Mrs Wasserman had not made the kind of substantial change of position seen in authorities where permanent release was found. But the landlord still lost its breach finding. A temporary waiver could be withdrawn only after reasonable notice of the intention to resume strict rights. Issuing an application based on an alleged existing breach could not itself supply that notice. The Upper Tribunal substituted a finding that there had been no breach up to and including the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. [2]
Why it matters. Years of permission do not necessarily rewrite a lease. Equally, a landlord cannot switch overnight from an established concession to a breach application. Before enforcement, review meeting minutes and correspondence, communicate clearly that the concession is ending, give a reasonable period to comply, and retain evidence that notice was given. If the arrangement is meant to be permanent, document a formal variation.
2. Rent valuation: the Tribunal must show its working
The facts. In Choudhury v Madej [2026] UKUT 302 (LC), decided on 6 August 2026, a landlord proposed increasing the rent on a small London studio from £650 to £1,600 per month using a section 13 notice under the Housing Act 1988. The tenant referred the proposal to the First-tier Tribunal. It put the open market rent at £1,000, made deductions, and determined £750 per month. The landlord had presented comparables, including smaller flats in the same building said to achieve £1,300–£1,350, but the written reasons did not explain their treatment. [3]
The ruling. Specialist valuation knowledge allows concise reasons, but the party who loses must understand why material comparable evidence did not prevail. A statement that the comparables were considered was insufficient. The Upper Tribunal also questioned the First-tier Tribunal’s reliance on landlord neglect when explaining its initial market figure: section 14 requires the relevant neglect to be disregarded at that stage and addressed in any appropriate adjustment. The entire determination was set aside and remitted to a different panel; the Upper Tribunal did not decide that £1,600, or any other figure, was the correct rent. [4]
Why it matters. Both sides should submit a focused schedule of actual comparables with dates, size, condition, amenities and included bills. Evidence of disrepair should be identified separately. A tribunal is entitled to disagree with comparables; it must explain a material disagreement in its reasons.
3. A prudent reserve fund still needs a power in the lease
The facts. In Tachkani v Thornfield Hawley Management Company Ltd [2026] UKUT 295 (LC), decided on 5 August 2026, a management company had collected service charge contributions towards a reserve fund at a 24-flat estate. Neither relevant lease expressly authorised the fund. The First-tier Tribunal regarded it as good management, inferred authority from a broad repairing obligation, and relied on previous accounts and residents’ discussions. [5]
The ruling. The Upper Tribunal held that a repairing obligation did not confer a power to collect money in advance for a reserve fund. A useful fund was not necessary to make these leases work. Nor could leases made by deed be varied through an informal consensus at a meeting. Past conduct may sometimes affect liability for particular historical demands, but the evidence here did not prevent the leaseholder from challenging the 2018–2025 reserve contributions. Those sums were held not payable. [6]
Why it matters. Check the charging machinery before including reserves in a budget. A broad obligation to repair, or a long-standing practice, is not a substitute for contractual authority. Where a reserve is desirable but the lease is silent, consider a properly documented lease variation. The question of whether a charge is reasonable arises only after establishing that the lease permits it at all.
4. Rehousing during major works: can the cost enter the service charge?
The facts. In Southern Land Securities Ltd v Rettie [2026] UKUT 308 (LC), decided on 10 August 2026, the landlord undertook damp-proofing works to two basement flats in an eight-flat building. The works cost about £85,000. Residents moved out and belongings were stored; the accommodation and storage element was said to total £16,397. Two other leaseholders challenged their liability to contribute, and the First-tier Tribunal decided in their favour. [7]
The ruling. On the findings below, residents could have remained during the works, so the landlord could not compel them to leave. It was nevertheless reasonable to pay for their cooperation so the repairs could proceed. The Upper Tribunal held that the relocation and storage costs were ancillary expenditure incurred in performing the landlord’s repairing obligation and recoverable under the lease’s service charge clause; a further broad clause also supported recovery. It allowed the appeal and held the two leaseholders liable to contribute. Their precise liability was not quantified in these proceedings. [8]
Why it matters. The test for compelling a resident to vacate is different from the test for recovering the cost of an agreed move. Landlords planning major works should assess whether occupation can continue, examine the precise repair and service charge clauses, record why relocation is sensible, and keep the accommodation and storage costs evidenced and proportionate. This decision does not make every decant cost recoverable under every lease.
The August message
These decisions turn on the same practical discipline:
Keep the contract, the evidence and the tribunal’s reasons aligned. An established concession needs a clear exit; a rent figure needs an intelligible route through the comparables; a reserve fund needs charging power; and a rehousing bill needs a contractual and reasonable basis. The details of each lease and the record of what happened will decide the next case.
If a similar issue affects your property, Privity Legal can advise on your position and the practical steps available.
Please reach out to enquiries@privitylegal.co.uk
Authorities
[1] Wasserman v Loyalart Flat Management Company Ltd [2026] UKUT 334 (LC), [1]– [11], [19]–[20]. Official judgment.
[2] Wasserman, [31]–[42], [49].
[3] Choudhury v Madej [2026] UKUT 302 (LC), [2]–[7]. Official judgment.
[4] Choudhury, [10]–[13]; Housing Act 1988, sections 13–14.
[5] Tachkani v Thornfield Hawley Management Company Ltd [2026] UKUT 295 (LC), [2]–[6]. Official judgment.
[6] Tachkani, [8]–[19]; Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 27A.
[7] Southern Land Securities Ltd v Rettie [2026] UKUT 308 (LC), [3]–[8], [14]–[15]. Official judgment.
[8] Southern Land Securities, [25]–[38].
*This newsletter is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. The position in an individual dispute depends on the lease or tenancy, the evidence, and the applicable statutory scheme.
** A First-tier Tribunal decision is not always the final word. With permission, it can be appealed on a point of law, and the Upper Tribunal may set it aside, remit the case for a fresh decision, or substitute its own decision.
