![[2024] UKUT 158 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
The decision in the FTT
The decision in the FTT
What the FTT said about the roof works was this:
There were works carried out to the roof in 2022. The charges were separated into categories based on individual invoices: Chris Aly Roofing- £5350; replace skylight- £1500; Replace rotten fascia - £1500; replace rotten tiles- £1500; replace ridging tiles - £1500; replace cladding -£1500. No consultation was carried out before these works were carried out. In Phillips and another v Francis and another (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening) Lord Dyson MR set out the following:
It is not in issue that the question of what a single set of qualifying works comprises is one of fact. It is a multi-factorial question the answer to which should be determined in a common sense way taking into account all relevant circumstances. Relevant factors are likely to include (i) where the items of work are to be carried out (whether they are contiguous to or physically far removed from each other); (ii) whether they are the subject of the same contract; (iii) whether they are to be done at more or less the same time or at different times; and (iv) whether the items of work are different in character from, or have no connection with, each other. I emphasise that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of factors which are likely to be relevant. Ultimately, it will be a question of fact and degree.
The Respondents sought to argue that the roof works eventually carried out
were wholly different from that planned. This seems unlikely. None of the works are unusual in the context of addressing roof defects. All the works related to the roof. There was one quote, the final one on 27 April 2022, that included all of the works. All the works were done at the same time, namely between 25 April 2022 to 6 May 2022 and the works were connected to each other as they all related to the state of the roof. There should have been a consultation and there was not therefore the service charge recoverable for these works is limited to £250 per flat.”
That was everything the FTT said about the roof works. There were no other findings of fact, and no background was set out.
The appellant has permission to appeal on the ground that that the FTT did not properly explain its decision that the applicant could recover only £250 from each tenant in respect of the roof works. It says that its case in the FTT was that a consultation was carried out, and it says in the appeal that the FTT should have addressed its evidence and explained why the consultation was not adequate.