Tenant's Challenge to Service Charges for External Redecoration Rejected

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Case Reference : BIR/00CN/LIS/2024/0008

Property : Flats 30 and 26 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Landlord and Tenant Act 1985); s.20C application under the 1985 Act to limit costs recovery; an application under Paragraph 5A, Schedule 11, of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 in respect of litigation costs

Tribunal Members : Judge C [NAME] of Decision : 20 March 2024

_________________________________________________

DECISION _________________________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

A. THE APPLICATIONS

1. This is the decision in the applications made by [NAME] and [NAME] [APPELLANT] (“the Applicants”), the respective owners of Flats 30 and 36 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] which are two of some 36 flats within the [ADDRESS] development (“the Property”), for the following:

1.1. a determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charge, pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”);

1.2. an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act to prevent the Respondent from recovering costs of these proceedings through the service charge; and

1.3. an application for an order under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) seeking to prevent the Respondent recovering from the Applicants their costs of these proceedings as an administration charge.

2. The s.27A application relates to the external redecoration works carried out the Property in 2019 for which the Respondent seeks recovery of the sums paid out via the service charge. These works are what the parties have referred to as the Phase One works, because they relate to only half of the Property. The other half, Phase Two, was intended to be done, but following disputes from the leaseholders, the Respondent put that work on hold.

3. In 2020, a right to manage company, was formed, thus passing responsibility for undertaking works of the relevant nature from the landlord to the [COMPANY].

B. PROCEDURAL ISSUES

(a) The Applicants’ position

4. The Applicants brought their applications by application dated 25 February 2024. The scope of the s.27A application can be summarised as follows:

Service charge year - 2013

4.1. The Applicants challenge the “External redecoration and repairs” in the sum of £96,700.49, and state the question for the Tribunal to determine as follows:

“In 1992 the external decoration charge was £10340 plus VAT. This is because there used to be access cradles at the property, by the freeholder had these removed so that he can rent the roof space to telecommunications companies, which is still the case today. This then created an avenue to carry out the external decorations by using scaffolding, which is the most expensive way to carry out this type of work as opposed to using scaffolding”.

4.2. The application notice goes on to state:

“… Just to put things into perspective, I have just obtained a quote to carry out external decorations of [ADDRESS], which materials the same spec as the one [managing agents] and they quote is … £21,686.58”

Service charge year – 2014

4.3. The Applicants challenge the “External redecoration and repairs £20,880.45”.

4.4. The question for the Tribunal to decide is stated as being:

“We spent £96,700.49 in 2013. Why did we need to spend a further £20,880.45 in 2014 for essentially the same job?”

Service charge year – 2018

4.5. The Applicants challenge “External redecoration professionals fees £9161.82”.

4.6. The question of the Tribunal is stated as being:

“Why did we pay these fees in advance of a job that we carried out and completed in 2019?”

4.7. The application goes on to say:

“A good quantitive (sic) surveyor should be able to back up my claims. This will be the case for the whole claim. The surveyor must be independent in the interest of fairness and impartiality.”

Service charge year – 2019

4.8. The Applicant challenge the “External redecoration £124,759.94. Access cover replacement £25,970.39.”

4.9. The application goes on to say:

4.10. “In 2019, we the [NAME] … paid … £124,759.94 for phase 1 of our external redecorations, which effectively means for half of the block… We paid a staggering £25,970.39 for manhole cover. I would expect it to be made out of gold for that price”

4.11. In addition to the above, the Applicants state that: “The current management co ([COMPANY]) have been using a shell co (Borditt and Legitt) to carry out the repairs and maintenance without declaring that the co they’ve been using actually belongs to the same management co. This has been independently determined by CEDR on behalf of [NAME]. They have also been carrying out repairs without consent from the directions of the [COMPANY].”

5. In a separate application, for an order under 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, and following directions from the Tribunal, in

support of the service charge application and an application under s.20C of the 1985 Act:

5.1. The quotes were an unacceptable increase on previous costs for less work; 5.2. The fees charges on top of the quotes for management of the contract works were not reasonable; 5.3. Subsequent quotes for comparable works obtained by the [COMPANY] are significantly lower; 5.4. There was correspondence from the [NAME] questioning the charges; 5.5. Some information requested during the section 20 process in 2018/2019 was not given until the deadline had passed thereby preventing a [NAME] from providing alternative quotes; 5.6. The dissatisfaction of the leaseholders can be seen by the decision to form an [COMPANY] in 2020 and the formal request by leaseholders to postpone phase two of the works; 5.7. Leaseholders had been advised to pay requested invoices to avoid legal costs from debt recovery following clause 5 of the lease; 5.8. The removal of maintenance carriages installed on the building after rental of the rood increase future costs of maintaining the building; 5.9. The building upon which the phase one works were undertaken in 2019 are now in a worse state that the other half of the building last decorated in 2014;

(b) The Respondents’ position

6. The Respondent’s position can be summarised as follows:

6.1. that the Applicants have not taken into account the full specification of the required works; 6.2. that the lease requires two coats of best quality paint every third year; 6.3. that the Respondents do not state what they consider to be unreasonable about the sums in dispute; 6.4. that the quotes obtained by the Applicants are not comparable to the works carried out, they do not provide for the significant cost of access and have not considered concrete repairs carried out; 6.5. that it complied fully with major works consultation requirements; 6.6. no decoration had been carried out since 2019 which is a breach of the lease by the [COMPANY] and the building is in a poor stage, such that the landlord will be obliged to bring a claim against the [COMPANY]; 6.7. there were never any fixed cradle points on the roof of [ADDRESS], although such were considered historically, but were never fitted due to high maintenance and installation costs; 6.8. that access cradles were not removed so as to install telecommunications equipment; 6.9. the freeholder has made a voluntary contribution towards service charge of £6,000 per annum; 6.10. insofar as there is any comparison to be had between the costs of works in 2019 versus those in 2014, there is a five-year difference and the property has since been exposed to poorer weather conditions and more wear and tear over that period (redecoration works are supposed to be carried out every three years).

(c) The Tribunal’s Directions

7. The Tribunal gave directions on 5 June 2024 and drew the attention of the parties to the provisions of s.27A(4) relating to admissions of service charge liability, noting that no challenge may be made in respect of service charge admitted or agreed by the tenant.

8. The parties were required to make submissions within 14 days as to each of the service charge years in contest so as to assist in determining whether any liability was admitted or agreed by the tenant.

9. [COMPANY] was incorporated in March 2020, it is not relevant to service charge issues that arise in this application, all of which, predate the [COMPANY] coming into being. To the extent the [COMPANY] is referenced, or it is relied upon by either party, it is irrelevant to the issues in this decision.

10. On 1 October 2024, the Tribunal gave a preliminary decision based on the response on behalf of the Applicants – the Respondent did not respond. The information given by the Applicants suggested that only the 2019 service charge year had been contested.

Accordingly, the Tribunal then struck out the service charge challenge for the years prior to 2019 pursuant to rule 9(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (Firs- tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (“the Rules”).

11. In addition, the Tribunal invited the parties to request an oral hearing, in the absence of which, it would deal with the application on paper following an inspection of the property. No request was made for a hearing and accordingly, this determination is made on the basis of the evidence and submissions made in writing. Further, the Tribunal panel inspected the property on 17 December 2024.

12. Consequently, this application proceeds with a challenge to the 2019 service charge year only.

C. THE EVIDENCE

13. The Respondent provided the following key documentation:

13.1. a copy of the Notice of Intention to carry out external decoration under s.20 of the 1985 Act, dated 28 November 2017;

13.2. a statement of estimates in respect of the intended works dated 27 February 2019 and associated documentation;

13.3. a detailed specification document from [NAME], [NAME] (“[NAME]”), dated 16 February 2018, in relation to the intended works.

14. The Applicant provided the lease, together with a detailed submissions document with some supporting documentation.

D. RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

Reasonableness of Service Charges

15. The key legislative provisions of relevance in this application are set out as follows.

16. S.19 of the 1985 Act states:

“19.— Limitation of service charges: reasonableness. (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period— (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly. (2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise. … (5) If a person takes any proceedings in the High Court in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act relating to service charges and he could have taken those proceedings in the county court, he shall not be entitled to recover any costs.”

17. S.20 of the 1985 Act provides:

“(1)Where this section applies to any qualifying works … the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a)complied with in relation to the works …, or (b) except in the case of works to which section 20D applies, dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate tribunal. (2)In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. …”

18. Regulation 7 and Schedule 4 of the Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (“the Consultation Regulations”), provides: “1.—(1) The landlord shall give notice in writing of his intention to carry out qualifying works— (a)to each tenant; and (b)where a recognised tenants' association represents some or all of the tenants, to the association. (2) The notice shall— (a)describe, in general terms, the works proposed to be carried out or specify the place and hours at which a description of the proposed works may be inspected;

(b)state the landlord’s reasons for considering it necessary to carry out the proposed works; (c)state that the reason why the landlord is not inviting recipients of the notice to nominate persons from whom he should try to obtain an estimate for carrying out the works is that public notice of the works is to be given; (d)invite the making, in writing, of observations in relation to the proposed works; and (e)specify— (i)the address to which such observations may be sent; (ii)that they must be delivered within the relevant period; and (iii)the date on which the relevant period ends.

2.—(1) Where a notice under paragraph 1 specifies a place and hours for inspection— (a)the place and hours so specified must be reasonable; and (b)a description of the proposed works must be available for inspection, free of charge, at that place and during those hours. (2) If facilities to enable copies to be taken are not made available at the times at which the description may be inspected, the landlord shall provide to any tenant, on request and free of charge, a copy of the description.” Costs Issues

19. Section 20C of the 1985 Act states insofar as relevant: “20(1)A tenant may make an application for an order that all or any of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings before a court, residential property tribunal or leasehold valuation tribunal or the First-tier Tribunal, or the Upper Tribunal, or in connection with arbitration proceedings, are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the tenant or any other person or persons specified in the application. (2)The application shall be made— (a)in the case of court proceedings, to the court before which the proceedings are taking place or, if the application is made after the proceedings are concluded, to [F5the county court]; … (ba)in the case of proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal, to the tribunal; … (3)The court or tribunal to which the application is made may make such order on the application as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.”

20. Paragraph 5A, Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act, states:

“5A(1)A tenant of a dwelling in England may apply to the relevant court or tribunal for an order reducing or extinguishing the tenant's liability to pay a particular administration charge in respect of litigation costs. (2)The relevant court or tribunal may make whatever order on the application it considers to be just and equitable. (3)In this paragraph—

(a)“litigation costs” means costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings of a kind mentioned in the table, and (b)“the relevant court or tribunal” means the court or tribunal mentioned in the table in relation to those proceedings. …”

E. DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION

Applications under s.27A of the 1985 Act

(a) Were the works of a reasonable amount?

21. The Applicants acknowledge that quotes will increase by reason of inflation over the years and general increases in building costs. However, the criticism levied, is that between 1992 and 2013, over 50% of the windows were replaced with UPVC windows, reducing the surface area requiring external decoration, and that the costs appear to have more than doubled in the space of four years between 2014 and 2018/2019.

22. The Applicants say that the reduced surface area of the painting appears to have not been considered in the 2019 quotes.

23. On reserve fund calculations produced in 2016, which estimated future costs for the re-decoration works of around £132,000 in 2018, £125,000 in 2023, £131,000 in 2028 and £135,000 in 2033. The actual quotes provided, relied upon by the respondents, more than twice the indicative figures.

24. The first thing to say, is that an estimate is only that, it is an estimate, by reference to facts known at that point in time. There is no material before us that allows us to identify specifically what information was available to the Respondent at the time when formulating the estimates. In any event, an estimate may be woefully under or over, it does not, certainly by itself, follow that a deviation from those estimates means that the work undertaken are unreasonable in amount.

25. The quotes from 1992, set out in Appendix 1 Part 1 of the Applicant’s Submissions, are recorded in a short letter from [NAME]. There is no detail of what the works are, save for “external redecoration” of the flats, but there are premised upon use of an access cradle.

26. There is no evidence before us as to whether either of those quotes were in fact accepted, at the values stated, or indeed, whether access cradles were used.

27. Appendix 1 Part 2 of the Applicant’s Submissions contains an extract from service accounts showing the cost of external redecoration/repairs in 2013 and 2014, with figures of £96,700.49 and £20,880.45 respectively.

28. The Applicants refer to the following:

28.1. From 1992 – a letter from [NAME] referring to two quotes obtained for the external redecoration, from [NAME] for £10,340 plus VAT and [COMPANY] for £9,868 plus VAT.

28.2. The fact that the redecoration costs from 2013/2014 were £118,000;

28.3. That the quotes relied upon from 2018/2019 were a total of £273,385 (which comprises both Phase 1 works at £140,883 and Phase 2 works at £132,502 – both figures include VAT.

29. The Applicants say that using the Bank of England inflation prices from 2013 to 2019 means the total costs of the works should be no more than £129,200.

30. Reference to rates of inflation are only potentially half of the picture. Building costs can increase beyond normal inflation metrics. Ideally, therefore, the tribunal would wish to see an alternative quote on the basis from around 2019/2020 or thereabouts. This, the Applicants contend, exists in the form of two quotes received by the [COMPANY] from [NAME] - £21,686.58, and [NAME], £37,900.

31. The Respondent says that these two quotes focus on the use of cradles to effect the redecoration works, but that, there are no cradles that can be used. Further, the Respondent says, the use of cradles could not be accommodated at all because of the existence of the telecommunications equipment on the roof.

32. The Applicant provide with its submissions, details of the quote summary compiled by the managing against in 2018/2019, which broadly speaking, provided quotes more or less in line with the figures provided by other suppliers. There is no dispute about the accuracy of the quotes as set out in the table. It shows the following figures for the Phase 1 works:

33. When considered in context, therefore, that four contractors should quote in broadly the same ball park reinforces the Respondent’s view that the costs incurred by it for the Phase 1 works were reasonable and that it is not possible simply to have regard to historic inflation rates from a central index.

34. Furthermore, the quotes provided to the [COMPANY] are based on a different premise as regards access, focussing as it does, on the use of cradles.

35. They say that the works undertaken in 2019 were not simply repainting works, but rather, extended to include such things as timber repairs/replacements, glazing and concrete repairs. Further, no account of scaffolding works is taken into

account in the quotations provided to the [COMPANY]. The Respondent says the quotes are not provided on a like-for-like basis.

36. A tender response provided by the selected supplier, [NAME], dated 15 February 2019, shows a total figure of £98,268 plus VAT (i.e. £117,921) for the works to be carried out by Penfield. On top of this, however, is a sum of contingencies of £7,500 plus VAT (i.e. £9,000). A contract administration fee was payable (on all quotes) based at 11% of the final account, which in the case of Penfield figure, came to £11,634.45 plus VAT (i.e. £13,961).

37. Without cradles, we are satisfied that the sums set out in the Penfield quote is a reasonable sum.

38. Turning then, to the issue of cradles. The Respondent’s position is that such cradles never existed, although their installation had been considered and rejected due to the considerable costs. To the extent that there is a conflict of positions, it is for the Applicants to satisfy us that the cradles did exist, were removed, and that this should be factored into an assessment of reasonableness. We have no evidence that the cradles did exist, and only a reference to cradles in the 1992 quote, although there is no evidence as to the circumstances of that quote being given. It is not clear, for example, whether these quotes were given on the basis that cradles would be installed, or whether they were already in existence.

39. We cannot therefore factor into our assessment of reasonableness the supposed existence of the cradles, absent appropriate evidence that satisfies us, in light of the existence of the cradles being in dispute, that they did in fact previously exist. We are not satisfied on the balance of probability that it is more likely than not that such cradles did indeed previously exist and accordingly, we conclude that it is was entirely reasonable of the Respondent to obtain quotes based on the need for substantial amounts of scaffolding.

40. We note that the freeholder has made a voluntary contribution of £6,000 per annum towards the service charge costs, this sum being derived form the income from the telecommunications equipment. In light of the findings made as to reasonableness, we do not consider this aspect especially relevant, although of course, it does reduce the sum owing by £6,000 for any given year.

41. Similarly, we consider issues about the period of works being undertaken to not be particularly helpful in identifying whether the sums incurred were reasonable or not, not least because, there is no evidence for us to identify the difference in costings had the works being more frequently carried out. In any event, it is difficult to see how the costs would have materially reduced in any event.

(b) The fees charged on top of the quotes for management of the contract were not reasonable

42. The total sum charged by [NAME] was £13,350. The contract administration charged was to be 11% of the final account, which was envisaged to be £13,961.

43. The criticism from the Applicants is that whilst a contract management charge is acceptable in principle, this one, it is said, was unreasonable and specific reference in the invoices levying the contract administration charge, included the narrative of “Liaison with telecoms companies” within it; the Applicants ask what liaison was necessary given the nature of the works.

44. There is no comparable evidence as to contract administration charges adduced by the Applicants. However, in the tribunal’s own experience, it would not consider a charge of 11% of the final account to be unreasonable in and of itself. It is a prima facie reasonable percentage for contract management.

45. In the absence of other evidence demonstrating the management charge is unreasonable, we consider it reasonable.

(c) Section 20 of the 1985 Act – information given outside of the deadline to [NAME]

46. The Applicants says that information was not provided to [NAME] in good time, to enable him to make appropriate suggestions and provide quotes, as part of the section 20 process.

47. Mr [NAME], a [NAME], sent an email to [NAME] which, it is understood, sought information to understand the specification of the repairs so he could make appropriate submissions and/or propose a different contractor. The only email provided in the bundle, however, was an email of 2 April 2019, which caused a reply to an earlier (unprovided) email.

48. There was a response from the managing agent on 2 April 2019, which indicated the detail requested would be provided. No exemption to the representations period was put in place.

49. Although the information provided in relation to this apparent failure to provide specification details is limited, it seems, from the documentation supplied, that the request was made by Mr [NAME] for the detailed specification to be provided by email.

50. The Consultation Regulations provide that, where a notice of intention sets out a place and hours for inspection, a description of the proposed works must be available for inspection at that place during those hours without charge. There is no right to request details by email.

51.

Accordingly, because the imposition of the statutory maximum sum of £250 applies only where there is a failure to comply with the Consultation Regulations, and there is no evidence to suggest that the consultation documents were unavailable at the place and during the hours indicated for inspection, we cannot conclude that there has been a failure to comply with the consultation requirements in the manner alleged.

(d) The building upon which the phase one works were undertaken in 2019 are now in a worse state that the other half of the building last decorated in 2014

52. The tribunal inspected the property on 17 December 2024. The difference in condition between the two elevations was noted.

53. It is impossible, however, to read into the difference in condition between the north and south facing elevations that the works carried out in 2019 were substandard. There is no evidence before us as to how the Property has fared over a period of time from previous works being undertaken, from which we can compare how the elements would have treated any particular elevation of the Property over any given period.

54. There is no evidence before us as to the specific materials that were used in 2019, versus those used in 2013/2014, from which we could identify that the materials were of an inferior quality. Even then, we should need to be able to identify whether any such inferior quality materials was likely the cause of any undue degradation in the condition on the Property, such that it could be said that the sums charged were in any way unreasonable by reference to the materials used.

55. We are not, therefore, able to conclude that the works carried out in 2019 were substandard, such that we ought to take that into account in determining reasonableness of the service charge for that year.

(e) Further issues

56. In its submissions, the Applicants raised a number of other issues that it requested the tribunal consider. These were: (a) that the property manager was a director of the [COMPANY], (b) that the respondent failed to make a voluntary contribution to the service charge expenses in 2021 and only contributed a sum of £3,000 in 2022 (it had previously been £6,000 per annum), and (c) action was taken against a [NAME] for non-payment of the service charges.

57. Issues (b) and (c) are clearly irrelevant to the issue of the reasonableness of service charge for 2019 (the payment for subsequent years by the landlord might have been relevant when considering the overall sums the landlord sought, but years subsequent to 2019 cannot be relevant to the position in 2019), and issue (c) is of no relevance whatsoever. As to issue (a), without more, is of no assistance in determining reasonableness of the service charges in issue.

(a) Payability

58. There are no submissions between the parties as to whether sums are lawfully payable for service charge by reference to the mechanisms of the lease. We have, however, reviewed the lease and we consider that service charge is properly payable under the lease. Clause 3(3) of the lease is the provision which permits a service charge to be made for the purposes of any “repair maintenance renewal and insurance of” the Property. It is said that certain certifications must be obtained, but we have received no submissions or evidence directly on such points and thus make no determination on compliance with any specific provisions under the lease which might be said to amount to a pre-condition on payment of the service charges.

Applications under Paragraph 5A, Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act

(b) The Applicants seek an order that any litigation costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with the proceedings be reduced or extinguished as an administration charge. The grounds relied upon are those set out in the s.27A application.

(c) The tribunal may make such order as it considers just and equitable.

(d) We received no submissions from either party as to whether we should make an order and, if so, in what form. We have no detail as to the level of costs incurred by the Respondent in these proceedings.

(e) It is not immediately clear to us which part of the lease might permit the recovery of litigation costs in relation to proceedings before this tribunal (to which our jurisdiction is limited).

(f) The relevant principles to consider when determining what might be just and equitable are those that apply to applications under s.20C of the 1985 Act.

(g) In the circumstances and considering that the Applicants have failed in all respects in relation to their challenge to the service charge, we do not consider it would be just and equitable to make any order at all under Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11.

Section 20C the 1985 Act

(h) S.20C the 1985 Act permits a tenant to apply for an order limiting recovery of legal costs incurred by way of the service charge. The Applicants seek such an order. The tribunal may make such an order as it considers just and equitable.

(i) Again, we make the same observations about the lack of information about any such costs and indeed, there are no specific submissions as to why such an order should be made or refused.

(j) In [NAME] v [NAME] [2013] UKUT 592 (LC), the Upper Tribunal held that it was essential to consider the practical and financial consequences of for all those that will be affected by the order. This of course includes those individuals not party to this application, who may end up being charged the costs of these proceedings in which they had not participated through the service charge. S.20C limited the applicability of an order under that provision to the applicant and, as such, it would not benefit the other leaseholders.

(k) If we were to make an order under s.20 therefore, it would mean that no attempt to recover the costs of these proceedings could be made through the service charge against the Applicants, but that such could be made against the other leaseholders of the Property. We have no details as to their position on this particular application. This is not necessarily the failure of the Applicants, however.

(l) Ultimately, however, the application has failed. In the circumstances, we do not consider it appropriate to make an order under s.20C.

F. CONCLUSIONS

S.27A Applications

(m) In light of the finds made, therefore, the conclusion of the tribunal is that the service charges sought to be recovered for the Phase One works are reasonable.

(n) To the extent any determination need be made at all about the Phase Two works, which were not carried out, and which are likely to be carried out we assume by the [COMPANY], we determine that the costs to be incurred are reasonable. Paragraph 5A, Schedule 11 – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Applications (o) No order is made under this provision. s.20C of the 1985 Act (p) No order is made under this provision.

FTT Judge Kelly Dated: 13 March 2025

Appeal Provisions

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).