Issue 3: Did the FTT fail to give adequate reasons for its decision?
Issue 3: Did the FTT fail to give adequate reasons for its decision?
I can deal briefly with Peabody’s final complaint. It is said that, from the FTT’s decision, it cannot understand the basis on which the service charge was reduced to £39. I disagree. It is clear from paragraph 28 of the decision that the figure represented the level of charge the FTT would expect to see in the market. There was no argument about items other than the management charge and only that part of the total was reduced. It was reduced because, as the FTT said it was “much higher than would be paid in the market for management services”. It follows that the total figure allowed by the FTT represents the figure proposed by the landlord with the substitution of a charge for management at the level which would be expected by the market. Ms Osler said that Peabody could not tell what the market comprised, or what buildings were included in it. But the FTT explained that it did not base its determination on individual buildings but on its general knowledge of management charges.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The facts
- Rent increases under assured periodic tenancies
- The notice of increase
- The FTT proceedings
- The grounds of appeal
- Issue 1: Was the FTT’s decision unfair because Catalyst had insufficient notice of the case it needed to meet?
- Issue 2: Was the FTT’s decision unfair because it relied on evidence which was not exposed to the parties for comment?
- Issue 3: Did the FTT fail to give adequate reasons for its decision?
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 41 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)