[2025] UKUT 39 (LC)

The last issue concerns section 73(3)(c) and (4). By cross appeal, the first respondent in the Plaza Boulevard appeal contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the FTT’s conclusion that the fire alarm service shared between The Studios and The Tower could be provided independently without a significant interuption.

It was common ground between the parties that it had been for the RTM company to prove that the final condition was satisfied. Ms Rai submitted that the company had led no evidence before the FTT on that issue and had failed to show that the fire alarm system could be “de-linked”, as she put it. It should therefore have dismissed the application on that additional ground as well.

There was very little evidence before the FTT of exactly what the fire alarm system comprised, but it was satisfied that a fire alarm was a “relevant service” within the meaning of section 72(5). There has been no challenge to that starting point, which is clearly correct; warning residents of a fire by means of a fire alarm, however it is connected or powered, is a service provided by means of a fixed installation.

The evidence which the FTT had comprised a very brief statement from the specialist maintenance engineers who had been maintaining the fire alarm systems at Plaza Boulevard since 2018. It also had some correspondence and a fire risk assessment prepared in 2021 when work was being carried out to replace cladding on the exterior of The Terrace. The engineer explained that independent fire alarms with their own autonomous fire control panels had originally been installed and commissioned for each of the five blocks, but these had later been networked together for monitoring. The network arrangement could easily be removed if required so that the system for each building operated independently again. The fire risk assessment suggested that the fire alarm system for The Terrace might not be required once the cladding issues had been resolved.

The engineer’s statement did not describe the extent of the works which might be required to make the systems independent, nor did it consider the extent of any interruption to the service which might be caused by those works. I assume it was for that reason that the FTT was not prepared to accept the statement as conclusive of the issue under section 72(4). But there was no evidence that the separation which had already occurred at three of the blocks had caused any interruption in the service. Having regard to the original design of the systems and the retention of the independent fire control panels, the temporary nature of the linkage, the absence of any evidence of disruption, and the engineer’s evidence that the interlinking could be “easily removed”, the FTT nevertheless concluded that the section 72(4) condition was satisfied in respect of The Studios.

The landlords tendered no evidence of their own on this issue and I have no doubt that the FTT was entitled to reach the conclusion it did on the basis of the evidence before it. I therefore dismiss the cross appeal on this issue.