Conclusions
After this decision was published on 14 August 2023 it was pointed out by Mr Davies that the outcome stated in paragraph 87 was inconsistent with my conclusion under issue 2 that the RTM Company’s entitlement to bring proceedings against Mr Davies for the unpaid service charge of £616.60 expired in May 2020, and that in determining the amount payable the FTT should therefore have omitted that sum. The respondent has been asked to comment but has not been prepared to acknowledge the inconsistency pointed out by Mr Davies. I am nevertheless satisfied that there is an inconsistency and that it was the result of an accidental slip which was not picked up by me, or by counsel when the decision was circulated in draft for proof reading. I am therefore issuing this amended decision, having corrected paragraphs 87 and 90 under the power contained in rule 53,(Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010. Time for the further submissions permitted by paragraph 89 and for any application for permission to appeal shall run from the date of this corrected decision is sent to the parties.
Martin Rodger KC,
Deputy Chamber President
25 August 2023
Right of appeal
Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Facts
- The current proceedings
- The FTT’s decision
- The issues
- Issue 1: The effect of the 2013 County Court decision
- Issue 2: The suggested agreement and the limitation defence
- Issue 3 – Was Mr Davies liable to pay the administration charges assessed by the FTT?
- Issue 4 - Did the FTT have jurisdiction to determine the costs of the proceedings?
- Disposal
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 197 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)