[2025] UKUT 120 (LC)

The final issue concerns the FTT’s decision to make an order under section 20C, 1985 Act. That order was made on the understanding that the respondent had succeeded in her case that she was entitled to substantial credits totalling more than £40,000, whereas the true position was that she was entitled to no more than the appellant’s accountant had calculated and certified which, in aggregate, was around £12,500.

It is now apparent that the FTT exercised its discretion on a basis more favourable to the respondent than was justified. I therefore set its section 20C order aside.

As her counsel acknowledged in his written argument for the FTT, most of the issues raised by the respondent fell away before the FTT hearing on the basis of the documents provided by the managing agent. Others were agreed, in the appellant’s favour, at the hearing. The respondent did achieve two successes: sums payable for lift maintenance were limited to £100 a year (because a 2017 rolling contract had not been the subject of prior consultation) saving the respondent £265.90 over four years; and she is also entitled to credit for annual surpluses in three out of the four years in dispute. The first success is insignificant but that cannot be said of the second. On the other hand: the respondent has not paid anything since July 2019 and has no obvious defence to the claim for almost £25,000 arrears (plus interest) brought against her; she was herself a director of the appellant until 2018 while the practice of allocating surpluses to the reserve was continuing, and the lift maintenance contract was entered into; and the appellant is jointly owned by all of the leaseholders, who will collectively have to meet any shortfall in the recovery of the costs of the proceedings. In all of those circumstances I am satisfied that it would not be just and equitable for the respondent to be treated differently from her neighbours, and I therefore refuse her application for an order under section 20C.