![[2024] UKUT 80 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
The proceedings in the FTT
The proceedings in the FTT
The application to the FTT was made in November 2022. Mr Atherden’s application said this:
“1. The paperwork supporting the stairwell redecoration expense of £3,880 has not been provided by the landlord. Despite numerous requests over a period of 18 months, a pre-arranged meeting and a formal Section 22 notice, the landlord has been unable to provide an invoice, payment receipt or clearly identifiable company bank statement entry to support this expense and this by the formal deadline of 31st October 2022.
2. The £600 roof repair expense is not listed in the service charge summary. This is a fully documented building expense which I was forced to instigate to protect my property and the building itself from continuous water infiltration. The landlord has unilaterally decided to exclude this expense from the service charge and refused to share it amongst leaseholders despite the repairs protecting five properties which reside beneath.
3. The service charge summary is not certified by a qualified accountant or a statutory auditor. The landlord also dispensed with the services of the accountant in 2021 and this without the consent of other leaseholders.
In the next box on the form Mr Atherden continued:
The paperwork relating to the stairwell redecoration expense provided by the landlord on the 6th November 2022 (a week after the notice period expired) is I believe not legally viable. The invoice is missing the company name and address, and the company logo is different from the one appearing on the original quotation. The description is lacking detail with no indication of the materials used despite a
£180 premium added to the original quotation for the use of a higher quality paint which cannot be verified. The landlord previously admitted to me he had no paperwork to support the expense as he had paid in cash.
I arranged for the roofer to proceed with the repairs and I paid the £600 roof expense however I expected to have it reimbursed through the service charge. All leaseholders and the landlord were consulted before the roofer was instructed to proceed. On completion, the paperwork supporting the expense was provided to the landlord.
No further comments on issue 3.
There does not appear to have been any further statement of case in front of the FTT.
The FTT gave directions, without a hearing, on 15 December 2022 and stated the issues in the proceedings included:
“The reasonableness and payability of service charges demanded 1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022 in particular
o The payability of £3,880 for stairwell redecoration expenses
o The omission of £600 roof repair expenses
o The failure to provide certification of service charge summary
o The dispensing with the services of an accountant
whether the landlord has complied with the consultation requirement under section 20 of the 1985 Act
whether the works are within the landlord’s obligations under the lease/ whether the cost of works are payable by the leaseholder under the lease
whether the costs are payable by reason of section 20B of the 1985
whether an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act and/or paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act should be made
That is curious because there was no mention of reasonableness of the charges in Mr Atherden’s application, and his application stated that he did not seek an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. Importantly there was no mention of the consultation requirements under section 20C of the 1985 Act in the context of the work done on the stairwell (although Mr Atherden claimed to have consulted the other leaseholders before commissioning work on the roof himself).
The FTT gave the usual direction to the applicant to complete a Scott Schedule setting out which charge he disputed and why. The Schedule was completed and is very brief; as to the stairwell work Mr Atherden said that it was payable, was not reasonable in amount, was not correctly demanded, that he was not prepared to pay anything, and that the reason was that “redecoration expense not payable”. There is no suggestion there that the work was not to a reasonable standard nor that the price was too high. As to the roof, it was said that the charge was payable, was reasonable in amount, and that the tenant was prepared to pay his proportion of it under the lease. Two further boxes said “Service charge summary certification not provided” and “Dispensed with the services of an accountant without the consent of the tenants”.
The FTT made its decision on the papers and without a hearing, on 15 May 2023.
As to the stairwell, the FTT said:
“14. The amount claimed is £3,880. This equates to a sum in excess of £250 per flat which requires compliance with consultation in accordance with s.20 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 … The Directions raised s.20 as an issue, but no documentation in this regard was provided. The tribunal assumes therefore that no s.20 consultation was carried out. There is no evidence that an application for dispensation was made to remedy this defect.
15. It is not in dispute that works were carried out albeit the applicant complains about the quality of the finish but it is difficult to ascertain from the limited evidence whether the charges were reasonable. In any event, in the absence of any s.20 Consultation, the relevant contribution by the applicant is limited to £250.
As to the roof works the FTT said:
“22. There is ample correspondence in the bundle to suggest that the roof works had been discussed and there was support for such works to be commissioned by the applicant from one other leaseholder.
It is difficult to see how the charge of £600 was not reasonably required if the tenants in the applicant’s flat were experiencing water ingress, … The Tribunal therefore finds that the charge of £600 is reasonable and payable and should have been included in the service charge account to be apportioned between the leaseholders.”
The appellant appeals those two determinations. There is no cross appeal from the FTT’s finding that the lease did not require the service charge accounts to be certified by an accountant.