Shared owners win service charge appeal

Social housing landlord Notting Hill Genesis has lost an appeal over its attempt to charge shared owners at a Battersea block for facilities serving private flats elsewhere on the estate.

The dispute turned on the wording of the leases, and that wording proved decisive.

The Upper Tribunal ruled that shared owners in block V1 at Viridian Apartments were not required to contribute towards services including a gym, concierge and communal gardens provided for residents of the development’s private blocks.

May’s judgment upheld a First-tier Tribunal ruling made in July 2025.

Notting Hill Genesis appealed that decision in September, arguing during the proceedings that ‘the fact that a tenant derives no benefit from a service is irrelevant to whether they are contractually bound to pay for it’.

Argument is ‘unattractive’

Judge Elizabeth Cooke rejected the landlord’s case and she said: “NHG’s argument that the respondents derive a benefit from the fact that the garden etc is kept in a good condition for other people to use, and so should pay something towards such facilities, is deeply unattractive.

“I agree that it is nice to have one’s neighbours’ gardens well-maintained, but that does not mean one has to pay for that pleasure, and in my judgment that is far too indirect a benefit to fall within what Section 35 [of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987] requires to be provided for.”

She added: “The same can be said of one’s neighbours’ concierge service, or of other benefits to one’s neighbours’ property.”

Headlease issues

Barratt Homes granted Notting Hill Genesis a 155-year headlease on block V1 from 1 June 2006.

It is the only Viridian Apartments headlease held by the housing provider.

Notting Hill Genesis does not hold the headleases for the private blocks, V2 to V7, but remains liable under its agreement for expenditure covering the wider development.

The tribunal found that the shared ownership sub-leases required residents to contribute only towards repairing and maintaining V1 and the services provided to that block.

They did not require the leaseholders to meet the wider estate costs payable by Notting Hill Genesis under its headlease.

Lease poorly drafted

Judge Cooke described the sub-leases as “poorly drafted”.

She said: “The real problem here is that the plain words of the headlease make [NHG] liable for services that cannot benefit it or its sub-lessees.

“Why it entered into a lease in those terms is unknown, but its attempt to visit the consequences of that decision on its sub-lessees cannot succeed.”

An NHG spokesperson said: “We respect the findings of the tribunal and are carefully considering what this outcome means for us and our residents.

“We recognise this has been a lengthy and difficult process and do not take that impact lightly. We remain committed to working with residents to ensure service charges are fair, transparent and proportionate.”