Cases - Urban Splash Work Ltd v (1) Gary Ridgway (2) Mary Bridget Cunningham
Record details
- Name
- Urban Splash Work Ltd v (1) Gary Ridgway (2) Mary Bridget Cunningham
- Date
- [2018]
- Citation
- UKUT 32 (LC)
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Service charges – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ss. 20C and 27A
- Summary
-
The respondents applied to the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) under s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for a determination as to whether service charges were payable for the years 2011 to 2016 as well as charges that would become payable by them in 2017. Determination was also sought in the sums payable for administration charges levied as a consequence of the appellant’s agents adding fees and charges to the respondents’ statement of account whenever it wrote to the leaseholders requiring payment of disputed sums.
Due to insufficient evidence, the FTT was only able to determine the amount of service charges payable in respect of some years, but not others. With regards to the administration charges, the FTT found that there was a lack of ‘unequivocal evidence’ that the appellant was required to indemnify its managing agent under the terms of their agreement. The appellant was therefore unable to prove that it had incurred any losses that were recoverable through the service charge provisions in lease. On costs, the FTT made an order under s.20C of the Act that none of the costs incurred by the appellant landlord in the proceedings before it was to be added to the service charge payable by the lessee. The FTT found that the appellant landlord had failed to provide account certificates until it had been forced to do so. Further, the lessees had indirectly been put to additional expense by the respondent’s failure to require them to contribute to a sinking fund upon the change of ownership.
The appellant appealed on the basis that the FTT had failed to consider all the issues in dispute and had incorrectly decided the s.20C.
Due to the lack of evidence before the FTT, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) found that the FTT had correctly not made any positive findings as to whether some of the service charges had been incurred by the appellant and was due. In every case the function and significance of the account certificate depended on the terms of the lease. Some of the sums claimed were uncertified and elements of it unexplained as was the appellant’s entitlement to the same. Under the terms of the respondents’ leases the obligation to pay the annual balancing charges was contingent on receipt of the certificates.
The UT found that the FTT was wrong not to have considered whether the appellants had suffered any losses for the administration charges claimed. The FTT had applied too stringent a requirement of proof and had been wrong to find that ‘unequivocal evidence’ was necessary before it could be satisfied that the appellant had incurred the additional charges. This issue was remitted back to the FTT for determination.
The UT upheld the FTT’s decision on costs under s.20C of the Act.