Ambercrown Limited vs Perrett and Lambell

This case concerned a dispute over service charges demanded by Ambercrown Limited from leaseholders Alexandra Perrett and Lea Lambell, focusing on whether proper consultation was conducted as required by law.

TLDR:

• Ambercrown Limited demanded service charges for roof works.
• The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that proper consultation was not conducted.
• The Upper Tribunal ruled on the adequacy of the consultation process.
• The appeal was allowed based on the lack of explanation by the FTT.

Ambercrown Limited, the freeholder of Nutley Court, demanded service charges from leaseholders Alexandra Perrett and Lea Lambell for roof works. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that Ambercrown Limited had not conducted the required consultation under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, limiting the recoverable amount to £250 per leaseholder.

Nutley Court consists of four flats and two maisonettes, all held on long leases. The six shareholders of Ambercrown Limited are the six leaseholders, including the respondents. The FTT directed the preparation of a Scott Schedule to address the numerous disputed charges, deciding on selected items, including a £12,500 charge for roof works.

The FTT found that no consultation was carried out before the roof works, referencing the case of Phillips v Francis. The FTT limited the recoverable service charge to £250 per flat due to the lack of consultation.

Ambercrown Limited appealed, arguing that a consultation was conducted and that the FTT did not explain why it was deemed inadequate. The Upper Tribunal heard the appeal with Mr. James Green representing Ambercrown Limited and the respondents appearing in person.

The Upper Tribunal reviewed the consultation process, noting that an initial notice was sent in September 2019, followed by a notice of estimates in January 2020. Work was delayed, and Packfords, the managing agent, resigned in April 2022, leading to the incorporation of Ambercrown Management Limited (AML).

Mr. Green and another leaseholder took the lead in getting the roof work done, with CK Roofing being contracted. The respondents did not respond to a letter from Mr. Green in April 2022, indicating that they would seek a dispensation from consultation if there were objections.

The Upper Tribunal found that the respondents had agreed to the charges and did not seek reimbursement. As a result, the FTT did not have jurisdiction to decide on the charges under section 27A(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the FTT's decision and ruling that there was no need to decide on the consultation issue as the charges were agreed upon by the respondents.

Legal representatives: Mr. James Green for Ambercrown Limited, Alexandra Perrett and Lea Lambell in person.

Judicial Panel: Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke

Case Citation Reference: [2024] UKUT 158 (LC)