Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber
Case No. UKUT-285-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Numbers:-LC-2022-125
Fecha: 27-Oct-2022
Conclusion
44.The result of this appeal means that the county court order dated 21 January 2022 has to be amended, by adding £531 (the outcome of ground 1) and £2,040 (ground 2) but subtracting £2,000 (ground 4) from the sum payable. As I understand it there is also an appeal pending in the county court against the orders made by the judge sitting as a Deputy District Judge in the county court, and so other adjustments may have to be made and therefore it is not appropriate for me to make any comment at this point about the final terms of that order.45.I mentioned above that the respondent Mr Franco attended the appeal hearing although he had not participated in the proceedings. In the course of the hearing it became clear that Mr Franco had not understood the reasons why certain sums were being demanded. It was not possible to provide him with all the details he needed on this occasion, since his queries related in part to items demanded in previous years, but I suggested, first, that he takes advice on the terms of his lease and, second, that it would be immensely helpful if the appellant’s managing agent could take some time to provide him with the explanations he needs.Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke7 November 2022
- © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
- Introduction
- Factual background and procedural history
- Ground 1: estimated service charges in respect of work on the meter cupboard
- Ground 2: the administration charge of £2,045 in respect of the costs of the FTT proceedings up to the date of issue.
- Ground 3: the administration charge in respect of the costs of the previous proceedings
- Ground 4: costs in the sum of £6,290
- Conclusion
- Right of appeal