Tribunal Excludes Unreasonable Costs from Residential Service Charges

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BA/LSC/2019/0022 Property : Flats 1 & 2 105 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (Also known as 212 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]) Applicants : [redacted] [NAME] [NAME] 2 Representative : Ms [COUNSEL] & [NAME] In Person Respondent : [redacted] [RESPONDENT] (2) Representatives :

[COMPANY] – none [NAME] – [NAME] [COUNSEL] -counsel and [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] – managing agents Type of [NAME] :

S27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – determination of service charges - payable and s20C - costs Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME] [NAME] Date and venue of Hearing : 30 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 15 June 2019

DECISION

2

The issues before the tribunal and its decisions 1. The issues before the tribunal were:

1.1 The services charges payable for the accounting years ending:

31 December 2017;

31 December 2018

1.2 The service charge budget for the accounting year ending 31

December 2019; and

1.3 The applicants’ [NAME] under s20C Landlord and Tenant Act

1985 (the Act)

2. The decisions of the tribunal are:

2.1 The services charges payable by each applicant for the

accounting years ending:

31 December 2017: £nil

31 December 2018 total £1,179.90 and the balance now payable

by each applicant is £404.90 as set out in Appendix 1 to this

decision

2.2 The service charge budget for the accounting year ending 31

December 2019 shall be as set out in Appendix 2 to this decision;

and

2.3 An order shall be made (and is hereby made) pursuant to s20C

of the Act to the effect that none of the costs incurred or to be

incurred by the second respondent ([NAME]) in respect of or

in connection with these proceedings are to be regarded as

relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the

amount of any service charge payable by either of the two

applicants.

Legal and procedural background Title matters 3. As at July 2017 the first respondent (SMDR) was registered at HM

Land Registry as the proprietor of 212 [ADDRESS]

[POSTCODE] – title number SGL632518. Evidently that property was

originally constructed as a retail shop with a [NAME] above it, perhaps in

the early 1900s.

The Charges Register records that a lease of the ground floor shop was

granted on 3 March 2015 for a term of 999 years from the date of grant.

3

The title number of that lease is SGL757534 which records that the

lease was granted by [COMPANY]. We have not seen a copy of

that lease.

4. SMDR carried out a redevelopment to create two self-contained flats

above the shop. This development included the construction of a new

roof.

5. By a lease dated 21 July 2017 SMDR demised [NAME] 1 to the first

applicant (Ms [APPELLANT]) for a term of 125 years commencing on the date

of grant and by a lease dated 20 October 2017 SMDR demised [NAME] 2 to

the second applicant ([NAME]) for a term of 125 years commencing

on the date of grant.

We were provided with a copy of the lease of [NAME] 1. We were told that

the two [NAME] leases were in common form.

6. At some point [NAME] made a loan to SMDR. The loan was secured

by a charge on the freehold interest. One of the terms of the loan was

that SMDR was to appoint [NAME], a company closely associated

with [NAME], to be the managing agent. That appointment took effect

in or about January 2018.

On 9 August 2018 SMDR transferred the freehold interest to [NAME].

On 27 February 2019 [NAME] was registered at HM Land Registry as

the proprietor. The Register records that the price stated to have been

paid in August 2018 was £20,000.

The residential leases 6. Clause 1.1 defines ‘Building’ to mean the building known as 212

Merton High Street …

Clause 1.12 defines ‘Quarter Days’ to mean 25 March, 24 June, 29

September and 25 December in each and every year of the term;

Clause 1.15 defines ‘rents’ to mean the Rent, The [NAME] and

the Service Charge Rent;

Clause 1.18 defines ‘Service Charge Rent’ to mean the Estimated

Service and the Service Charge Shortfall payable by the Tenant under

clause 8 and payable by the Tenant as additional rent;

Clause 6.5 is a covenant on the part of the Tenant: To pay to the

Landlord the Service Charge Rent in accordance with the provisions of

clause 8.5;

Clause 8 sets out the service charge regime in some detail. Not much of

the clause was controversial and it is convenient to set out a summary

of the material provisions:

Clause 8.1 sets out a number of definitions, including:

4

Accounting Year: Period 1 January to 31 December (Unless and until

changed by the landlord – as yet no notice of change has been given)

Service Charge: a fair and reasonable proportion as determined by

the landlord’s surveyor acting impartially, as long as the aggregate

proportions payable by all of the lessees in Building equates to 100%.

(It was not in dispute that a one third share to each lessee was a fair

and reasonable proportion of the expenditure on the building as a

whole and that a one half share was a fair and reasonable proportion of

the expenditure referable to the two flats only.)

Estimated Service Charge: an advance payment on account of a

fair and reasonable proportion of the amount the landlord reasonably

estimates for each accounting year. The estimated amount is payable by

four equal instalments in advance on the Quarter Days (clause 8.5.1.1);

Certificate: a written statement signed and certified by the landlord’s

accountant or other appropriately qualified person, accurately setting

out a summary of the expenses and the amount of any balancing debit

or credit for each accounting year;

The Expenses: Clause 8.2 sets out a comprehensive list of

expenditure which is to comprise the service charge. It is sensible to

highlight two particular provisions:

8.2 (c) Repairing, maintaining, renewing, resurfacing,

decorating, pointing, cleaning, carpeting … the Common Parts

8.2 (j) Pursuing and enforcing any claim, or taking or

defending proceedings or actions in respect of the whole or part of the

Building to the extent that the same relate to matters that do not fall

within the obligations of the Tenant or any other lessee of any part of

the Building or insofar as the costs thereof are not recoverable from

the lessee in breach of covenant;

Clause 8.2 (q) provides that the landlord may in its discretion create a

reserve fund, but as yet no such fund has been created

Clause 8.4.2 provides that the landlord shall keep accounts with proof

of all payments received or payable in connection with the Expenses or

the Services;

Clause 8.4.3 provides that the landlord shall as soon as reasonably

practicable after the expiry of the relevant accounting year prepare or

cause to be prepared the Certificate and to supply a copy of the

Certificate to the tenant as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter;

5

Clause 8.4.5 provides that where there is a balancing credit the amount

is to be repaid by the landlord to the tenant, unless the tenant consents

to the amount being credited against the next payment due;

Clause 8.5.1.2 provides that where there is a balancing debit the

amount is to be paid by the tenant to the landlord within 14 days of the

landlord supplying the Certificate.

The proceedings and the hearing 7. The [NAME] form is dated 7 January 2019. Directions were given on

23 January 2019.

SMDR has not taken any part in these proceedings and was not

represented at the hearing.

[NAME], acting by its managing agent, [NAME] has taken part.

The applicants and [NAME] have filed and served materials they wish

to rely upon.

8. At the hearing:

Ms [NAME] and [NAME] attended and presented their case in

person. Several members of their respective families attended to

support and assist them.

[NAME] was represented by [NAME] [COUNSEL] of counsel assisted by

[NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] who is the son of the officers of both [NAME]

and [NAME]

The service charges in dispute 2017 7. The first accounting year we are concerned with is from the date of

grant of the leases to 31 December 2017. Ms [NAME] ad [NAME] tell us

that on the grant of the leases they each paid £400 to SMDR on

account of the service charge for the period ended 31 December 2017.

At the year-end SMDR was the landlord and the party responsible to

provide the Certificate. It has not done so. Despite a number of efforts

by Ms [NAME] and [NAME], SMDR has failed to provide any account

or information about service charge expenditure incurred in the period

ended 31 December 2017.

8. At the hearing, [NAME] [NAME] said that there was a business connection

between [NAME] and SMDR but the officers and beneficial owners of

the two companies were not in any way connected. He also said that

although he was not appointed to represent SMDR, he wished to hand

in a document which he claimed was evidence that the building was

insured during 2017. The document was stated to be a Certificate of

[NAME] issued by QBE, It states the risk address to be 212 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. The period of cover was 17 January

2017 to 16 January 2018. The building value sum assured was

6

£900,000 and the declared value £600,000. Details of excesses were

recorded. There was no indication of the amount of the premium paid.

9. The applicants might ordinarily be responsible to make a one third

contribution to the cost of buildings [NAME] apportioned from the

date of their respective leases to 16 January 2018. However, no

information to enable a calculation to be made has been provided.

Further, as stated above, SMDR has failed and neglected to issue a

year-end certificate.

10. In these circumstances we cannot properly find that any service charges

are payable by the applicants to SMDR for the period(s) from the grant

of their respective leases to 31 December 2017. It follows that we

consider that SMDR should reimburse to each applicant the £400 paid

by them on account – clause of the lease 8.4.5 refers.

2018 Certificate 11. As at 31 December 2018 the freehold had been transferred to [NAME].

[NAME] [NAME] produced the Certificate. It is dated 3 December 2018. It

contained some errors – incorrect dates for which [NAME] [NAME]

apologised.

The Certificate claimed the following expenditure:

Costs shared equally between three lessees:

[NAME] + broker’s fee

£1,823.07

Fire, Health & Safety Risk Assessment

£ 300.00

Management fee

£ 846.00

£2,969.07

Costs shared equally between the two residential lessees:

Common parts cleaning

£198.40

Common parts lighting repair

£182.02

Key cutting

£ 30.00

£410.42

The Certificate recorded a payment of £775.00 on account and claimed

a debit balance of £419.90.

[NAME] £1823.07 12. Ms [NAME] and [NAME] did not challenge the cost of the [NAME]

claimed but prior to the hearing had put [NAME] on notice that they

considered the cost to be very high compared with quotes they had

obtained and that they expected a much lower premium to be payable

in 2019.

Fire, Health & Safety Risk Assessment £300

7 13. Ms [NAME] and [NAME] challenged the Fire, Health & Safety Risk

Assessment fee of £300. Their main argument was that it was

unnecessary to obtain a report because SMDR had procured a report

dated 27 August 2017 which had not identified any remedial works

required.

14. [NAME] [NAME] said that the above report had not been handed over by

SMDR on completion of the transfer. He did not explain why [NAME]

had not insisted on handover of all material documents which is usual

practice and part of due diligence usually undertaken on the sale of a

property by one business to another.

[NAME] [NAME] said it was standard practice for [NAME] to obtain an

independent report from its own contractor upon acquiring an asset.

He also said, initially that it was practice to obtain a report each year.

In detailed questioning [NAME] [NAME] conceded that there was no

statutory obligation to obtain an annual report and that whilst

contractors might recommend an annual report, that was a self-serving

recommendation and that experienced professional property managers

should take an informed view having regard to the specific features of

each development. Here the common parts comprised a very [NAME]

lobby behind the street door and a short internal staircase to the first

floor lit by one light fitting. In the absence of any alterations or

works an annual report would not amount to an expense reasonably

incurred and [NAME] [NAME] reminded us that the cost of such a report was

not included in the 2019 budget.

15. We gave detailed consideration to the report procured by [NAME].

It is dated 23 October 2018. It is an important document. In section 1.2

it drew attention to the absence of a fire detection or alarm system

located in the common parts. It also drew attention to the responsibility

of the landlord to ensure 30 minute fire doors to each demise and that

smoke/carbon monoxide detection units are fully functional. This of

itself draws concerns about the utility/value of the report procured by

SMDR. However, that said we were disappointed to learn that having

gone to the expense of procuring a report, [NAME] did not provide a

copy of it to the applicants straightaway and that it has still not taken

any steps to implement any of the recommendations made. We urge it

to do so promptly.

16. On this occasion and given the above and that important safety factors

that have been identified, we find that it was reasonable to incur the

expense of the report and that the amount incurred was a reasonable

amount. However, we do wish to emphasise that as a general

proposition where a landlord procures such a report which makes

recommendations but where the report is not shared with the lessees

(who will bear the cost of it) and where the landlord fails, without good

reason, to take steps to implement reasonable recommendations, many

tribunals will struggle to find that such expenditure was reasonably

incurred.

8

Common parts cleaning £198.40 17. There was no dispute about the cost of cleaning claimed. Ms [NAME] and

Ms [NAME] explained that the cost was quite high for the service

provided and that going forward they were willing to undertake the

cleaning to the very [NAME] common parts themselves. It will be shown

shortly that the parties have come to an understanding about future

cleaning.

Lighting repair £182.02 18. There was no dispute about the lighting repair cost.

Key cutting £30 19. [NAME] [NAME] withdrew the claim to key cutting £30 because he was

unable to adduce any evidence as why the cost was incurred and to

whom the £30 was paid.

Management fees £846 20. Management fees were contentious. The applicants contended they

were unreasonable in amount. They relied upon a quote of £500 for the

whole block from Sandton Chartered Surveyors dated 5 April 2019.

That firm is based in Morden, Surrey. The quote did not mention VAT,

but it did mention that very few services were to be provided.

21. [NAME] [NAME] gave evidence. He said the charge was £705 + VAT = £846.

That equated to a unit fee of £235 before VAT. [NAME] claimed it

was a competitive fee. He based his evidence of that on keeping an eye

on the competition. [NAME] [NAME] also said that the fee includes

bookkeeping, accountancy and the production of the annual certificate

all of which are prepared in-[NAME] to save incurring additional external

costs.

[NAME] [NAME] said that [NAME] had not recently gone out to competitive

tender for managing agents services, although he acknowledged it was

good practice for landlords to go to competitive tender for all services

periodically.

[NAME] [NAME] observed that the quote obtained by the applicants appears

to have been given without reference to the lease and the services to be

provided.

22. We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions. There is

no obligation on a landlord to seek out the lowest cost for a service. We

find it not unreasonable for a landlord with a large portfolio to place all,

or most of its business, with one [NAME] and [NAME] agent, even if a [NAME]

[NAME] agent might offer a lower price. That said, the agreed fee must still

be within the range of what is reasonable in the market.

We also bear in mind that smaller developments often attract a higher

unit fee because there is no economy of scale. Where, as here, the unit

fee is £235 before VAT, we find that it is a fee within (but only just) the

9

scale of reasonable fees for this type of development in the subject

location.

23. Of course, where the fee is at the higher end of the scale, lessees are

entitled to expect the level and quality of service provided to be

commensurate with the cost of it.

24. In these circumstances we find that the fee of £846 was reasonably

incurred and is reasonable in amount.

2019 Budget

25. The budget as issued was as follows:

Costs shared equally between the three lessees:

[NAME] + broker’s fee

£1,914.22

Drainage cleaning

£ 400.00

[NAME]

£ 900.00

Repairs (emergency fund)

£1,000.00

Management fee

£ 853.20

£5,067.42

Costs shared equally between the two residential lessees:

Common parts electricity

£ 200.00

Common parts cleaning

£ 500.00

26. The budget has to be based on a reasonable expectation of anticipated

expenditure within the knowledge of the person at the time the budget

was prepared. Obviously the budget will not be exact in every particular

and reasonable estimates have to be factored in.

[NAME] £1,914.22 27. [NAME] [NAME] gave evidence. He said the £1,914.22 was included because

the [NAME] was to be effected in January 2019 and when the budget

was prepared it was known this was the amount of the premium and

[NAME] fee that was going to be payable.

28. The hearing today was not the appropriate forum or occasion to

determine whether that was a sum reasonable in amount. But we find

that since it was a known sum, it was reasonable to include it in the

budget.

29. At the hearing there was a good deal of discussion about the cost of

[NAME]. The applicants had produced quotes of £930.09 inc tax and

£1,101.01 inc tax. Having gone through them the applicants appreciated

they were not like for like with the buildings [NAME] effected by

[NAME] and there were some caveats.

10 30. [NAME] [NAME] sought to rely upon an undated letter from [NAME] to [NAME]. It states that an annual review of the

market is undertaken to ensure that the rates are competitive

taking into account a range of specified cover required. The letter also

stated that “… the portfolio is currently insured with [NAME].”

The certificate of [NAME] for the period of cover 24 January 2018 to

1 February 2019 appears to have been issued by AXA.

31. [NAME] [NAME] agreed that each year the [NAME] provide a report to

[NAME] summarising the market testing undertaken and the

responses from the insurers approached and [NAME]

recommendations. He said that [NAME] would consider the report

and give an instruction to the [NAME]. [NAME] [NAME] was unable to

explain why the report and letter of instruction had not been exhibited

to [NAME]’s statement of case.

32. For the moment we only have to decide the reasonableness of the

amount entered in the budget. We have done so. At year-end when the

certificate is given the applicants will be entitled to challenge any

amount they consider to be unreasonable. If an agreement cannot be

reached it will be open to them to make a further [NAME] to the

tribunal under s27A of he Act. If they were to do so we would urge both

parties to give detailed consideration to the evidence they would wish

to rely upon. We would expect both parties to take full account of the

criticisms we have made about the inadequate evidence presented by

both of the parties in these proceedings.

Drainage cleaning £400 33. [NAME] [NAME] told us that he had not prepared the budget and he did not

know how the sum had been arrived at. He suggested it might cover the

cost of two cleans of the guttering, downpipes and actual drains. He

also suggested it might have allowed for the possibility of some de-

scaling. [NAME] [NAME] was unable to identify the specific drains he had

in mind.

34. The applicants produced a quote from [NAME] dated 4 April 2019

for £125 + VAT to attend the property to clear the gutters and check the

downpipes for any blockages.

35. This is a relatively new development so there is not much of a history or

track record to have regard to. That makes budgeting a bit more

difficult. On the limited evidence put before us we were not persuaded

that two gutter cleans per year was a reasonable estimate. We have

adjusted the budget to £200 which we find to be a more realistic

reasonable sum.

[NAME] £ 900.00 36. Having regard to the terms of the lease, and that [NAME] had no

information as to how the historic buildings [NAME] valuations had

11

been arrived at, it was eventually agreed that it was not unreasonable

for a re-[NAME] valuation to be carried out.

37. [NAME] [NAME] said that going forward such re-valuations are undertaken

every five years or so, depending on the circumstances of each

individual development.

38. [NAME] [NAME] was unable to explain how the sum of £900 had been

arrived at. He said that [NAME] uses several different surveyors for

this service.

39. The applicants referred to a quote of £500. This sum struck a chord

with the experience of the members of the tribunal and we have

adjusted the budget to this sum.

Repairs (emergency fund) £1,000.00 40. Following a short adjournment to discuss matters, the parties informed

us that they had agreed this item should be £300.

Management fee £853.20 41. For the reasons explained earlier in paragraphs 20-24 we find that as a

budget sum £853.20 is a reasonable sum. That assumes the high level

of service commensurate with that cost is actually is delivered. Should

that turn out not to be the case the applicants will be able to challenge

the sum that is claimed in the year-end certificate.

Common parts electricity £200 42. [NAME] [NAME] withdrew this sum when he was reminded that there is no

landlord’s supply to the common parts. Evidently the one light fitting

on the common parts stairway is powered from [NAME] 1’s supply and Ms

[NAME] told us that she was willing to bear the very modest cost

incurred.

Common parts cleaning £500 43. The parties told us they had agreed that as from July 2019 the landlord

would cease to provide this service and the applicants would make their

own arrangements. The applicants will pay a reasonable sum for the

service delivered up to June 2019 and it was agreed the budget sum to

cover that cost was £250.

Conclusion 44. Having regard to the above matters the budget for 2019 determined by

us is that set out in Appendix 2. For avoidance of doubt and to assist

the parties we have set out the amounts of, and the dates on which, the

advance payments are due and payable.

S20C [NAME] 45. The [NAME] form included an [NAME] for an order pursuant to

s20C of the Act.

12 46. The [NAME] was opposed by [NAME]. [NAME] [NAME] told us that

[NAME] would be looking to recover an hourly charge for all the time

spent by him managing the proceedings and preparing for and

attending the hearing. He did not give an estimate as to what the

amount of such costs might be. He also said that [NAME] would look

to recover [NAME] [NAME] brief fee which was £1,300 + VAT = £1,560.

47. The applicants submitted that they had no representation and had

handled the proceedings themselves and that it would not be fair if they

had to pay the landlord’s costs. They had [NAME] to resolve matters

amicably through correspondence but [NAME] had not been

responsive. They were therefore forced to come to the tribunal to get

redress and clarity. They also reminded us that they were first-time

buyers with no experience of residential leasehold management,

whereas in contrast [NAME] and [NAME] has very considerable

experience in this area.

48. [NAME] [NAME] submitted that, as matter of contract, [NAME] was entitled

to put its costs through the service charge account. He relied upon

clause 8.2(j) of the lease which we have set out in full in paragraph 6

above. He also submitted that [NAME] had not acted unreasonably

and he relied upon some correspondence. [NAME] [NAME] accepted that

during the course of the hearing both parties had made some

concessions and had compromised on some issues.

49. S20C provides that a tribunal may make such order as it considers just

and equitable in the circumstances.

50. We have decided to make an order because it is just and equitable to do

so. We prefer the submissions made by the applicants. We are far from

persuaded that clause 8.2(j), construed as a whole and in context,

provides a clear and unambiguous provision that certain costs not

recoverable from a lessee in breach of covenant may be put through the

service charge account. In these proceedings no question of a breach of

covenant by a lessee arises. [NAME] is simply responding to an

[NAME] concerning the payability of certain service charges it has

claimed are payable.

51. Even if clause 8.2(j) was to be construed so as to give [NAME] a

contractual right to pass its costs of these proceedings through the

service charge we find it just and equitable to make an order

prohibiting it from doing so.

52. We have carefully reviewed the correspondence put before us by the

parties. Contrary to [NAME]’s submission, we find that it does not

show that [NAME] has acted reasonably. Given that applicants are

inexperienced first-time buyers [NAME] was not as responsive as it

ought to have been, particularly bearing in mind its management fees

were at the high end of the range.

13 53. Further, we are not persuaded that all of the costs identified by [NAME]

[NAME] were (or will be) reasonably incurred or reasonable in amount,

or indeed proportionate.

With no disrespect to the contribution made by [NAME] [NAME], the

[NAME] did not raise any significant or complex legal or factual

points. [NAME] [NAME] is an experienced managing agent, has a legal

qualification, and regularly appears at proceedings in this tribunal both

as a witness and as an advocate. He also regularly prepares sets of

instructions to counsel.

54. Standing back and looking at the circumstances in the round we are

reinforced in our view that justice and equity requires an order to be

made.

Judge John Hewitt 15 June 2019

Appendix 1

Services charges payable year-ending 31 December 2018

Costs shared equally between the three lessees:

[NAME] + broker’s fee

£1,823.07 Fire, Health & Safety Risk Assessment

£ 300.00 Management fee

£ 846.00

£2,969.07 ÷ 3 = £989.69

Costs shared equally between the two residential lessees:

Common parts cleaning

£198.40 Common parts lighting repair

£182.02

£380.42 ÷ 2 = £190.21

£1,179.90 Less paid on account

£ 775.oo

Balance now payable by each applicant

£ 404.90

14 Appendix 2 Service charge budget for the year-ending 31 December 2019

Costs shared equally between the three lessees:

[NAME] + broker’s fee

£1,914.22 Drainage cleaning

£ 200.00 [NAME]

£ 500.00 Repairs (emergency fund)

£ 300.00 Management fee

£ 853.20

£3,767.42 ÷ 3 = £1,255.80

Costs shared equally between the two residential lessees:

Common parts cleaning

£ 250.00 ÷ 2 = £ 125.00

Total payable on account by each applicant

£1,380.80

Payable by four equal instalments of £345.20 each on 25 March 2019, 24 June 2019, 29 September 2019 and 25 December 2019

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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

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

3. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the date on which the tribunal sends out to the [NAME] the written reasons for the decision.

4. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

5. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.

6. If the tribunal refuses permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made directly to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)