[2025] UKUT 173 (LC)

In the service charge summaries prepared by Mr Webber to support the annual demands he grouped “repairs and fire alarm” together as a single entry. The FTT split this item into two lines, one for “maintenance and repairs” and one for “fire alarm”. It allowed the amounts claimed in full for all years from 2017/18 with the exception of 2020/21. For that year Mr Webber had claimed £3,749.33 for repairs and fire alarm, which the FTT reduced to £820.20. It did so because, it explained, the invoices and bank statements provided by Mr Webber showed that only £820.20 had been spent in relation to the fire alarm that year.

Mr Webber’s complaint is that the FTT had omitted to take account of the invoices and bank entries for repairs and had included only those referable to the fire alarm. I am satisfied that he is correct and Ms Syed did not suggest otherwise. The bank statements for 2020/21 show expenditure of £3,749.33 on entries identified by Mr Webber as “maintenance”. The invoices which he supplied to the FTT corroborated that expenditure. The only omission was the second page of an invoice for work done in September 2020 to repair a retaining wall in the garden. It is not suggested that the work was not done (it was referred to by the FTT), and the bank statements show that payments were made at that time to the tradesmen whose invoice it was. The FTT gave no reason for omitting the charges for repairs or maintenance and I am satisfied that the total sum of £3,749.33 ought to have been allowed and not simply the reduced figure of £820.20 for the fire alarm alone. Ms Syed’s share of the balance is 244.09.

I allow the appeal on ground 4. The additional charge payable by Ms Syed is 244.09.