Leaseholder David Jeffs used other cases to support his own but it appears one may have been invented by artificial intelligence
A leaseholder has lost a property tribunal against Lewisham Council and has been ordered to pay almost £30,000 in service charges, after appearing to have used AI to argue his case.
Leaseholder David Jeffs owes £29,886.09 in service charges after a First-Tier Property Tribunal ruled against his claims that the council had failed to properly consult him on major works to the building.
The works included the erection of scaffolding, the replacement of windows, roofing works and communal works of repair, replacement and maintenance. The works began in June 2023 and were completed by December 2023.
Mr Jeffs claimed the consultation process under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 wasn’t complied with because he never received a copy of the Notice of Estimates, which details estimated costs of proposed works.
Because he claimed to have never received a copy detailing the proposed costs of the works, Mr Jeffs said he was excluded from the 30-day consultation period, which he says caused him “significant prejudice” as he says he did not have the opportunity to review the estimates, nominate alternatives and influence the costs of the works.
He argued the notice should have been sent to his correspondence address which is in Colchester, Essex, rather than the buy-to-let property address on Greystead Road in Lewisham which he rents out to tenants.
He said the council was aware of his correspondence address in Colchester and had used it to send other documents, and argued the invoiced amount was not payable, believing the total costs the council could recover should be capped at £250.
However Lewisham Council said it did comply with the consultation requirements as per section 20 of the 1985 Act and the Service Charges Regulations 2003. The council said it sent the Notice of Estimates for the works on November 15, 2022 to both Mr Jeffs’ Colchester address and his leasehold property address in Lewisham.
The council said it sent the Notice of Intention for long-term agreement for planned and major works on November 15, 2019, while the the Notice of Proposal of a Contractor was sent on March 1, 2021.
According to a Tribunal decision on March 16, 2026, Mr Jeffs accepted that he had received the Notice of Intention to enter into a long term agreement for planned and major works and the service charge invoice dated October 8, 2024 at his correspondence address.
Mr Jeffs said he did not know if copies of any of the notices or invoices had been sent to the leasehold address as he had not received anything.
In his evidence, Mr Jeffs said he was not aware of what happened to any post delivered to the leasehold property in Lewisham said said he had no system in place to retrieve correspondence sent there.
Non-existent case ‘may have been invented by AI’
The Tribunal heard how Mr Jeffs had cited various cases in support of his own, however the cases were either not relevant or did not contain the details they were said to contain. One case was reportedly non-existent.
When questioned by the Tribunal on this point, Mr Jeffs said he had done online research but it appeared either the searches or Artificial Intelligence had invented or adapted case law to support his argument.
Mr Jeffs was asked if he had read or had copies of the cases he had referred to, to which he said he had not read them and did not have copies.
The Tribunal heard from Crystle Miller, on behalf of the council, who was responsible for collating and sending the various notices, including the Notice of Estimates.
She confirmed she had sent the Notice of Estimates to both the leasehold address and the correspondence address in Colchester – as shown on the Proof of Posting document. The Tribunal was also shown a table containing responses to the consultation from other leaseholders, to whom notices had been sent to both property and correspondence addresses.
Judge Purcell and Judge N Carr said they were satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Notice of Estimates were sent to both Mr Jeffs’ leasehold property in Lewisham and his correspondence address in Colchester.
They said in their conclusions: “The Tribunal finds that the Notice of Estimates was sent to both the property address and correspondence address whether or not the applicant [Mr Jeffs] actually received the notice.
“The Tribunal takes the view on the evidence before it that the Notice of Estimates was validly served and the Section 20 consultation procedure was complied with.”
To see all the planning applications, traffic diversions, road layout changes, alcohol licence applications and more in your area, enter your postcode below or visit the Public Notice Portal HERE
