5(1) Did the appellant give a proper explanation of the extent and cost of the works?
5(1) Did the appellant give a proper explanation of the extent and cost of the works?
As we saw at paragraph 31 above the FTT said at its paragraph 24 that the appellant “had not explained in detail the extent or costs of the works.” The appellant says that this is incorrect and points to the following material that was before the FTT:
Grounds for Seeking Dispensation
Reply to Objections
The Report of Mr Payne
The evidence of Mr David Partridge
Schedule of Work
Spreadsheet of Estimates, Accepted Estimates and Final Costs
This material is all in the appeal bundle. Whilst the appellant’s pleadings in the FTT (items a and b above) did not themselves specify in detail the work done, nor mention its cost, the documents exhibited to the pleadings (the rest of the items above) did. The Schedule of works, and the schedule of estimates and final costs are particularly detailed and gave the FTT all it needed to know. The FTT’s attention was drawn to them, and particularly to the final cost, in the course of the hearing. The finding that the appellant did not give sufficient explanation of the works or of the cost was made against the weight of the evidence and is set aside.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The legal background
- The factual background and the proceedings in the FTT
- The proceedings in the FTT
- The appeal
- (1): The FTT was wrong to hold that a landlord whose title has not been registered cannot enter and do works on the property without the legal owner’s permission
- 5(1) Did the appellant give a proper explanation of the extent and cost of the works?
- 5(2) Was there satisfactory evidence of completion of the works?
- 5(3) Was the FTT wrong to dismiss the report and schedule of works of Mr Payne?
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 56 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)