Ambercrown Limited v Alexandra Perrett & Anor
[2024] UKUT 158 (LC)
Thirty One Crescent Grove Limited v Sven Atherden
2 April 2024
[2024] UKUT 80 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A group of flat owners, who also owned their building, argued about repair bills. A judge ruled that one bill was agreed to, even without formal paperwork. Another bill, paid by one owner, wasn't the building's responsibility and so couldn't be claimed back from others.
Key Facts
- •Thirty One Crescent Grove Limited (landlord), a tenant-owned company, appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision on service charge liability.
- •The dispute concerned £3,880 for stairwell redecoration and £600 for roof repairs undertaken by respondent, Mr. Atherden.
- •Leaseholders, including Mr. Atherden, collectively owned the landlord company.
- •The FTT decided the landlord could recover only £250 for stairwell redecoration due to lack of consultation (s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) and that the £600 roof repair cost should be shared as a service charge.
- •The landlord appealed, arguing Mr. Atherden had agreed to the stairwell cost (s.27A(4) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) and that the roof repair cost was not incurred by or on behalf of the landlord (s.18(2) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985).
Legal Principles
Service charges are payable unless there's a failure to comply with s.18 (reasonably incurred costs and reasonable standard of works) or s.20 (consultation process for works costing over £250 per tenant).
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
An application under s.27A(1) or (3) cannot be made for a matter agreed or admitted by the tenant.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Failure to comply with s.22 (providing reasonable facilities for inspecting accounts) is a criminal offence but doesn't affect service charge payability.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Service charges must represent costs incurred by or on behalf of the landlord.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Outcomes
The appeal regarding the stairwell redecoration succeeded.
Mr. Atherden's emails indicated agreement to the work, precluding a s.27A(4) application. The FTT erred by considering s.20 consultation without Mr. Atherden raising it as an issue.
The appeal regarding the roof repairs succeeded.
The £600 roof repair cost was not incurred by or on behalf of the landlord; it was not a decision of the landlord company. Mr. Atherden's actions lacked sufficient majority shareholder support.
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)
Russell Stewart Lacy v Homeselect Finance (No.3) Limited
[2023] UKUT 231 (LC)
Assethold Limited v Nelio Patricio Teixeira Franco
[2022] UKUT 285 (LC)