Introduction
Introduction
This is an appeal from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”) in its jurisdiction under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine whether variable service charges are payable. The appellant tenants, Mr Graham Bradley and Mr Michael Rhodes, hold the long leases of two of the 168 flats in Romney House, 47 Marsham Street, London, where there are also four commercial units and a gym. They applied to the FTT for a determination that service charges paid, or to be paid, by them in respect of the upkeep of the gym were not payable, on the basis that the decision made by the respondent landlord, Abacus Land 4 Limited, to demand those charges of them had been taken in breach of the terms of the lease. The FTT found that the charges were payable and the appellants have permission from this Tribunal to appeal.
The appellants were represented by Mr James Sandham, and the respondent by Mr Tom Morris. I am grateful to both for their helpful arguments.
At the start of the appeal hearing there was some discussion about how many appellants there are. In the FTT the two appellants were the only applicants. 51 leaseholders joined with them in respect of their application under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, with a view to preventing the respondent from recovering its litigation costs from the leaseholders as part of the service charge, and they were listed in the appellants’ application from as “other people who may be significantly affected by the application.” By the time of the FTT hearing that number had grown to 61. But there remained only two applicants. There can therefore be only two appellants, although I accept that the 61 other leaseholders are party to any application under section 20C in the appeal.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The leases and the factual background to the appeal
- The legal background
- The background to Aviva
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Aviva
- What is the effect of a discretion qualified by an express obligation to act reasonably?
- The FTT’s decision
- The appeal
- Ground 6: was there jurisdiction to make a determination about the years 2013 to 2020?
- The substantive grounds of appeal
- The arguments of the respondent
- 10: (a) to pay to the Landlord within seven days of demand the Residential Service Charge Proportion of
- Discussion
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 120 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)