[2024] UKUT 81 (LC)

In the appeal Ms Gourlay argued for the appellants that they could not have agreed or admitted the service charges in dispute when they did not know, and still do not know, the amount of actual expenditure attributable to their block because there has never been the reconciliation or balancing exercise prescribed by the lease nor any statement or demand for final charges. She also argued that the FTT was wrong to take into account payments in the years preceding 2012, when those years were not in issue; earlier payments could have no bearing on later liability in the context of section 27A(5).

Mr Walsh relied upon the decision in Cain. He argued that once a leaseholder has made regular payments for some time, it is in effect prevented from challenging service charges unless they do so immediately – before the next payment, even if payments are made monthly as in the present appeal. As he put it, once there is a long enough period of undisputed payments the leaseholder moves into a regime where he or she has to protest fast if they want to dispute anything.