[2025] UKUT 19 (LC)

The FTT’s written decision was very brief, most of its substance being set out on the Scott Schedule rather than in narrative form. It made a determination in favour of the leaseholders on most of the costs that they challenged; some items were disallowed altogether others reduced by 20%, 33% or even 50% in some cases. However, on a number of items the leaseholders were unsuccessful and the FTT allowed the charge in full. The decisions on three of those items are the subject of the appeal.

The FTT made the orders requested under section 20C of the 1985 Act and under Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act, and ordered the respondent to reimburse the application and hearing fees paid by the applicants (paragraph 11 of its decision), no doubt reflecting the fact that the leaseholders’ application had been largely successful. However, the FTT’s response to the application under rule 13(1)(b) made no reference to the leaseholders’ chronology or statement of case, and simply said:

“[Counsel for the landlord] made no submissions in respect of this application although was offered the opportunity to do so. The tribunal is not persuaded that the high bar set in r13 as discussed in Willow Court Investments v has been made. The tribunal finds the respondent largely complied with the tribunal’s directions, although often late an in a piecemeal fashion. However, despite this, the tribunal finds the applicants have not been prejudiced in seeking a determination of the various issues they raised.”

The appellants, being two of the applicants in the FTT, have permission granted by this Tribunal to appeal the FTT’s decision on three items of expenditure which the FTT decided were reasonably incurred, and to appeal the refusal to make a costs order under rule 13(1)(b). So the appeal can be said to fall into two parts: a substantive appeal and an appeal relating to costs.