[2025] UKUT 174 (LC)

The appellant complains that his arguments have been ignored. He is right. I need not elaborate; the FTT has not said why his observation about inflation, his alternative quote, his reference to the decision relating to Flat 7, and his comment about the extent of cover. The FTT was well aware of that earlier decision because it referred to it in the substantive part of its judgment, in order to explain that service charges in respect of which it had already made a determination in that decision could not be re-opened by the leaseholder of Flat 7 in the present case.

I should add a further comment about the FTT’s decision in relation to Flat 7. Of course the FTT is not bound by its own decisions. A decision made between identical parties can create an issue estoppel between them, but that was not the case here because the earlier decision was made between the same respondent but a different tenant. Nevertheless it was not open to the FTT simply to ignore so obviously relevant a decision in relation to the same insurance cost. The FTT’s comments in relation to the 2019/20 charge in its earlier decision (LON/ooAQ/LSC/2022/0290) were as follows:

“24.

The applicant says that the amount charged represents a 100% increase in annual buildings insurance from 2018-2019 to 2019-2020. This is seen as an unreasonable increase as the building has not seen a material change …

25.

The charge is anomalous. It is way above insurance fees for previous and subsequent years. Interestingly the applicant did produce an alternative insurance quote from a reputable insurance company for the year 2022 and for the same cover where the premium was £1,607.10 excluding any markups for management and brokerage. … The Tribunal were not satisfied that the charge was reasonable when compared to other years and the alternative quote provided. The Tribunal therefore sets this charge at £2,705 inclusive of management and brokerage giving an individual charge of £259.38.”

That £2,705 was the cost incurred in 2018/19 (see paragraph 9 above). The FTT went on to allow in full a charge for insurance of £243.86, being 1/8 of £1950.88 for the following year 2020/21, because in the absence of comparable evidence it felt unable to say that this was not reasonable (and of course it was lower than the figure allowed by the FTT for 2019/20). But the charge of £524.62 for Flat 7 for insurance in 2021/22, being 1/8 of £4,196.91, was again described as “anomalous”, and much higher than earlier years and than the alternative quotation provided. The sum of £259.38, being 1/8 of £2,705, was again allowed as a reasonable cost.

The FTT in 2024 and in relation to Flat 2 was not bound by that decision. But as a matter of commonsense and fairness it needed to say why it disagreed.