![[2023] UKUT 271 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
Summary of my conclusions
Summary of my conclusions
In summary, my conclusions on the two issues raised by the appeal are as follows:
The decision of the FTT to impose the Costs Condition was wrong in law, both as a matter of procedure and as a matter of substance. For the reasons which I have set out, the decision cannot be upheld as lying within the legitimate scope of the discretion which the FTT were exercising.
By virtue of Paragraph 9, and for the reasons which I have given, the Costs are not recoverable, by the Service Charge, from those of the Respondents who hold qualifying leases within the meaning of Section 119. The Reviewed Decision was, for this reason, incomplete. The Costs were not recoverable in any event from those of the Respondents who hold qualifying leases. In this context I should also repeat that it does not seem to me that it would be fair to criticise the FTT for this omission.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Representation at the hearing
- Further submissions
- Relevant background
- The Original Decision
- The Reviewed Decision
- The grounds of appeal
- My jurisdiction in relation to the appeal
- The Section 20C Applications
- Can the decision of the FTT to impose the Costs Condition be upheld? – Analysis
- Is the recovery of the Costs affected by Paragraph 9? – Analysis
- 156, In keeping with this objective, it seems to me that the purpose of the restrictions (or limitations) in Schedule 8 is simply to provide that service charges for certain “things” , to use the lang
- What, if anything, should be done about the Section 20C Applications?
- Summary of my conclusions
- Should the decision to impose the Costs Condition be set aside?
- Should the Reviewed Decision be remitted or re-made and, if so, on what terms?
- Conclusions