Ambercrown Limited v Alexandra Perrett & Anor

A tribunal determining service-charge liability must address the landlord’s material case and explain why the evidence does not establish compliance with the consultation requirements. A conclusory finding that no consultation occurred, without considering the consultation relied upon and whether it related to the works performed, is inadequate.

Further, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 27A(4) prevents a tribunal from determining a service-charge matter which the tenant has agreed or admitted. An admission made in the appeal may therefore remove the tribunal’s jurisdiction, making it unnecessary to decide the consultation issue.

The landlord appealed from a First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determination concerning service charges for roof works at a block of flats. The First-tier Tribunal held that no consultation had been undertaken and limited recovery to £250 from each leaseholder.

The landlord contended that consultation undertaken in 2019 and 2020 concerning water-ingress works covered the roof works later completed in 2022. The central appeal issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal had adequately explained why that consultation was not consultation for the works carried out.

During the appeal, the leaseholders confirmed that they had agreed the relevant charges, had paid them, and did not seek repayment. The Tribunal therefore also considered whether section 27A(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 excluded jurisdiction to determine their liability.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision on the £12,500 roof-work charges was set aside. Its reasons did not address the landlord’s case that the 2019–2020 consultation was consultation for the works undertaken in 2022. It neither considered the evidence relied on nor explained why that process was inadequate for those works.
2. The Upper Tribunal did not decide whether the earlier consultation in fact complied with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. That issue became unnecessary because both leaseholders confirmed at the appeal hearing that they had agreed their shares of the charges, had paid them, and did not seek reimbursement.
3. Section 27A(4) provides that no application may be made in respect of a matter agreed or admitted by the tenant. The leaseholders’ admission meant that the First-tier Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine whether the roof-work charges were payable.
4. The Tribunal substituted a decision that there was no jurisdiction to determine those charges. The practical consequence was that the payments already made by the leaseholders were not to be repaid.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the landlord’s appeal and set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s determination concerning the roof-work service charges.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): In proceedings under references LON/00AZ/LSC/2023/0082 and 83, held that no consultation had been carried out and limited recovery for the roof works to £250 per leaseholder.