Mohammed Naeem & Anor v Abacona Investments Limited

In a service-charge challenge, leaseholders need only raise a prima facie case that a cost was unreasonable. The landlord must then explain why the cost was nevertheless reasonably incurred.

That burden does not require a charge to be disallowed where the evidence before the tribunal demonstrates that the allegedly cheaper method was impracticable. Major external repair works requiring a firm working platform, weather protection and substantial access may reasonably require scaffolding, even where cradles or a scissor lift would be cheaper for simpler decorative work.

The appellants were long leaseholders of flats in a nine-storey block. They challenged a 2019 service charge of £124,759.94 for external repair and redecoration works under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, arguing that cradles or a scissor lift could have been used instead of scaffolding.

The First-tier Tribunal initially dismissed the challenge and, on review, again found that the costs had been reasonably incurred. Permission to appeal was granted on the question whether the FTT had approached the absence of evidence correctly and whether the landlord had to justify the more expensive method.

1. Appeal dismissed. The FTT’s reviewed decision stood. The cost of the 2019 works was reasonably incurred.
2. The correct approach in a service-charge challenge is that the leaseholder need only raise a prima facie case that the charge appears unreasonable. The landlord must then answer that case by showing why the cost was reasonably incurred.
3. The FTT should have recognised that the appellants had raised such a case concerning the possible use of cradles and a scissor lift. Its reasoning placed the practical consequences of the absence of evidence on the wrong party.
4. That error did not justify remittal. The evidence before the FTT included the landlord’s detailed specification, which required substantial repairs to windows, timber, glazing, render and other external elements. Those works required a firm working platform, enclosure, weather protection and fixed attachments. The use of cradles or a scissor lift was therefore impracticable, and scaffolding was reasonably necessary.
5. In any event, the Tribunal observed that the telecommunications equipment on the roof had been installed following consultation and had generated substantial benefits for leaseholders. Even if cradles could have been used, the landlord would not necessarily have been required to bear the additional maintenance cost resulting from the roof-space lettings.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s reviewed decision dated 22 July 2025 failed. The reviewed decision stood.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Determined that the 2019 service-charge costs had been reasonably incurred.