When the landlord's name is not enough

Part II: a valuable reminder of the requirements under sections 47 and 48 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987.

Landlords and managing agents will be familiar with the requirements under section 47 that a demand for residential service charges must state the landlord's name if the charges are to be payable.

However, with more and more resident owned management companies running their own buildings it is not uncommon for service charge demands to state two names; the management company to whom the services charges are payable and the landlord.

It would be easy to think that by stating both names and addresses on the demand the requirements of section 47 have been complied with but apparently not so.

A recent decision of the Upper Tribunal has made it clear that where the demand includes two or more names it is not simply enough for the landlord's name and address to appear on the demand.  The tenant should not be left guessing who his landlord is.  The demand should explicitly identify which company is the landlord.  Failure to do so will mean the charges are not due from the tenant (Tedla v Caramet Court Residents Association Limited [2015]).

The Tedla case is a useful reminder of the strict requirements of section 47 and the implications for non-compliance but I suspect the main challenge for managing agents is fitting all the words on the demand.