Assethold Limited v Nelio Patricio Teixeira Franco
[2022] UKUT 285 (LC)
Every leaseholder has the right to a determination by the FTT of the service charges they are liable to pay, as conferred by section 27A, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 27A(1) and (3)
This right cannot be removed by a decision about service charges payable by someone else, even if the expenditure is the same. It's protected by the common law right to a fair hearing and Article 6(1) ECHR.
Common law, Article 6(1) ECHR
FTT rule 9(3)(c) allows striking out proceedings if they are between the same parties and arise from substantially the same facts as a previously decided case. This did not apply here as appellants weren't parties to the earlier case.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, rule 9(3)(c)
FTT rule 9(3)(d) allows striking out proceedings if they are frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT misapplied this rule in this instance.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, rule 9(3)(d)
A respondent's concession in an appeal is insufficient to overturn a lower tribunal's decision; a judicial determination is required.
Upper Tribunal reasoning
Appeal allowed.
The FTT wrongly struck out the appellants' application. Leaseholders have an individual right to FTT determination of their service charges, irrespective of previous decisions involving other leaseholders, even if concerning similar expenditure. The FTT's reliance on the alleged improper motives of a non-party and proportionality concerns was flawed.
FTT decision set aside and remitted to a differently constituted panel.
To ensure fairness, given the previous panel's decision to strike out the application.
[2022] UKUT 285 (LC)
[2023] UKSC 6
[2024] UKUT 37 (LC)
[2023] UKUT 231 (LC)
[2023] UKUT 108 (LC)