Triplerose Limited v Holly Bowles & Ors.

Under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a tribunal determining service-charge reasonableness has jurisdiction only over the amount genuinely challenged or not admitted by the tenant. A tenant’s pleaded and clearly confirmed concession cannot be exceeded merely because the evidence might support a larger reduction.

Where the tribunal has made the necessary factual findings, an appellate tribunal may substitute its own calculation rather than remit the issue. A factual conclusion about service-charge expenditure is adequately explained where the tribunal’s reasoning can be understood from its findings read together, even if one paragraph is brief.

The freeholder of Bridge Court appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal concerning service charges payable by 16 leaseholders for 2014 to 2019. Permission was granted on two grounds: whether the FTT had reduced cleaning and management charges beyond the amounts challenged or admitted by the leaseholders, and whether it had adequately explained its finding that only half of the CCTV charges were reasonable.

The appeal required consideration of the effect of the leaseholders’ statements of case, the Scott Schedule and their evidence at the hearing, together with the adequacy of the FTT’s reasons for its CCTV conclusion.

1. Cleaning and management charges. Section 27A(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 prevented an application for a determination in respect of a matter agreed or admitted by the tenant. The leaseholders’ statements of case, the Scott Schedule and their evidence showed that they deliberately challenged only one-third of the cleaning charges and the specified amounts of the management charges. The FTT therefore lacked jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of any larger part of those charges.
2. The FTT’s factual conclusion that half of the relevant charges was unreasonable did not require a remission. The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT’s decision on these items and substituted the amounts calculated by reference to the sums actually challenged. Two-thirds of the cleaning charges were payable for each year. The management charges were reduced by the amounts specified in the Scott Schedule.
3. CCTV charges. The FTT had not ignored or rejected without explanation the evidence of the managing agent’s employee. Its conclusion that 50% of the CCTV charges should be disallowed followed from its findings that there was insufficient specific evidence of frequent use and that the incidents relied upon were not supported by effective follow-up evidence. Reading the relevant findings together, the explanation was adequate.
4. The appeal therefore succeeded in relation to the cleaning and management charges and failed in relation to the CCTV charges.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeal was allowed in part. The FTT’s decisions on cleaning and management charges were set aside and substituted with the amounts stated in the judgment. The appeal concerning CCTV charges failed.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): The FTT determined the reasonableness and payability of service charges for 2014 to 2019, allowing some charges, reducing others and finding some not payable.