Thirty One Crescent Grove Limited v Sven Atherden
[2024] UKUT 80 (LC)
Ambercrown Limited v Alexandra Perrett & Anor
5 June 2024
[2024] UKUT 158 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord did roof repairs. The tenant said there wasn't enough consultation, a court agreed. But the higher court found the tenants, who also ran the company, had basically already agreed to pay, so the original court didn't have the power to decide if the tenants should pay.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision on service charges.
- •Dispute concerns roof works costing £12,500 at Nutley Court.
- •Landlord (Ambercrown Limited) claims consultation occurred; FTT disagreed.
- •Leaseholders (respondents) were also directors of the appellant company.
- •FTT found no consultation under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
- •FTT limited recoverable charges to £250 per flat.
- •Previous consultations regarding water ingress were conducted in 2019-2020.
- •Work in 2022 addressed roof defects found after the previous plans were deemed unfeasible.
- •Leaseholders admitted to agreement on charges and did not seek reimbursement.
Legal Principles
Landlords must follow consultation procedures under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 for service charges exceeding £250 per tenant.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 20; Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003
The FTT has jurisdiction to determine service charge liability, but not where the matter has been agreed or admitted by the tenant.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 27A(4)
Determining what constitutes a 'single set of qualifying works' is a question of fact, considering factors like location, contract, timing, and character of work.
Phillips and another v Francis and another
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The FTT failed to address the landlord's case regarding consultation and did not explain why the consultation was inadequate. The Upper Tribunal found that the leaseholders had agreed to the charges, removing the FTT's jurisdiction.
FTT decision set aside.
Lack of jurisdiction to decide on service charges due to tenant agreement.
Similar Cases
Firstport Property Services Limited v Various Leaseholders of Switch House
[2023] UKUT 219 (LC)
Crisplane Limited v Plymouth Community Homes Limited
[2024] UKUT 15 (LC)
Assethold Limited v Nelio Patricio Teixeira Franco
[2022] UKUT 285 (LC)
Michael Connell & Anor v Beal Developments Limited & Ors
[2024] UKUT 54 (LC)