Julia Beer & Anor v Daisy Dance & Anor

A tribunal determining whether service charges are recoverable must consider relevant documents relied on by a party, particularly where those documents bear directly on compliance with the statutory consultation procedure. A decision reached without material evidence may involve a serious procedural irregularity. In that event, the affected part of the decision should be set aside and remitted for a fresh determination. Parties must ensure that the hearing bundle is complete and that relevant material is clearly brought to the tribunal’s attention.

The freeholders of a building containing five flats appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) concerning charges for roof works. The leaseholders argued that the consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 had not been followed, with the consequence that recovery was limited to £250 per leaseholder in each relevant year.

The First-tier Tribunal accepted that the works had been carried out but was not satisfied that consultation had taken place. On appeal, the freeholders produced or relied on emails said to evidence the consultation. Those emails were not in the First-tier Tribunal bundle, and the parties had not drawn the tribunal’s attention to relevant findings in an earlier decision. The central issue was whether that omission constituted procedural unfairness requiring the decision to be set aside.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision concerning the section 20 consultation issue was set aside and that issue was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
2. Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 gives the First-tier Tribunal jurisdiction to determine whether service charges are payable and, if so, their amount and recipient. Section 20 and the regulations made under it restrict recovery for major works where the statutory consultation process has not been followed.
3. The First-tier Tribunal had decided that the consultation process had not been followed because the freeholders could not identify supporting evidence in the bundle. Relevant emails said to constitute the consultation were absent from the bundle. The parties also accepted that the earlier First-tier Tribunal decision, which recorded the relevant events, had not been brought to the tribunal’s attention.
4. That omission amounted to a serious procedural irregularity. The First-tier Tribunal was unable to take relevant material into account when deciding whether consultation had occurred. The Upper Tribunal therefore did not need to determine the application to adduce fresh evidence.
5. The remitted hearing should be arranged by directions of the First-tier Tribunal. Both parties should take care to provide a complete bundle and to draw all relevant material clearly to the tribunal’s attention.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The decision dated 6 March 2025 was set aside on the consultation issue and that issue was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Determined on 6 March 2025 that the statutory consultation process had not been shown to have been followed and limited recovery to £250 per leaseholder per year.