[2025] UKUT 19 (LC)

I deal first with the appeal from the FTT’s decision that three items of expenditure we reasonably incurred. They were:

A number of points are common to all three items, which are presented as three separate grounds of appeal. The first is that the material before the FTT in each case was the leaseholders’ initial application, their detailed statement of case made once they had some disclosure from the respondent, their comments against each item on the Scott Schedule, and a witness statement made by Mr Sameer Rana, the first appellant. From the respondent the FTT had only its comments on the Scott Schedule, which were brief and formulaic (for example, against most items the respondent’s comment was

“all invoices have been included

reasonable cost for service

no alternative quote provided”

There was therefore no evidence from the respondent at all (its comments on the Scott Schedule were not verified by a statement of truth). Accordingly the leaseholders’ evidence (given by Mr Rana) was not challenged by evidence to the contrary. If the FTT was going to disagree with what he said it would have to explain its conclusion very carefully indeed.

The second point these three items have in common is that the FTT’s decision was brief, being comprised only in the final column of the Scott Schedule, and did not explain why it did not accept the leaseholders’ evidence.

Third, the FTT’s reason for refusing of permission to appeal on these three items was cursory in the extreme and does not indicate that it had engaged in any way with the grounds of appeal:

“The applicants seek to challenge the tribunal’s finding of fact it was entitled to make on the evidence presented to it by the parties and in respect of grounds on two and three identifies in this application for Permission to Appeal.”

Bearing those points in mind I turn to the individual items.