[2023] UKUT 197 (LC)

This appeal concerns a dispute over a service charge of £616 which the appellant refused to pay in 2014 because, he said, he was entitled to a credit from an earlier year. In 2022 judgment for the disputed sum was entered by the County Court, after a determination by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (the FTT). By that time contractual interest, administration charges and costs had inflated the original charge to £14,917.

The appeal is against the decision of the FTT dated 31 August 2022, following the transfer to it of proceedings commenced in the County Court by Benwell Road RTM Co Ltd, the respondent to the appeal, against Mr Davies, the appellant. The decision was given by the two-person panel acting both in their tribunal capacity and in their capacity as, respectively, a judge of the County Court and an assessor, and the judge also entered a County Court judgment purporting to give effect to their decision. One of the problems which it will be necessary to address in the appeal is that it is unclear in which capacity the panel reached different parts of its decision; for that reason it is also unclear whether they had jurisdiction to make parts of their orders, and whether the proper route of appeal lies to this Tribunal or to the Court.

The County Court judgment was for the sum of £6,719.59 (including interest) claimed under a long residential lease granted to Mr Davies on 6 March 2006, together with costs assessed at £8,197.50.

The judgment sum comprised four separate elements which the FTT had determined the appellant was liable to pay, namely:

At the hearing of the appeal both parties were represented by counsel, Jonathan Wardfor the appellant and Miss Amanda Gourlay for the respondent. I am grateful to them both for their assistance in navigating this muddled case.