E-Flash: Rose v. Bracknell Gate Properties Limited [2025] UKUT 386 (LC)
Mr Toby Vanhegan and Mr Salmaan Hassanally appeared for the successful appellant in this case.
The Upper Tribunal held that the consultation requirements in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 do not apply to fees for professional services because they are not "works on a building".
Mr Rose was a long leaseholder of a flat at Bracknell Gate. The respondent was the freeholder. On 23 December 2023 he received a service charge demand in the sum of £14,406.85 for major electrical works to be carried out at Bracknell Gate. On the same date, he also received a service charge demand for a contribution to the Reserve Fund. He challenged the lawfulness of both demands by application to the First Tier Tribunal.
Prior to the hearing of the application in the First Tier Tribunal, the respondent conceded that Mr Rose was not liable to pay the contribution to the Reserve Fund. The FTT decided that he was liable to pay the demand in respect of the major electrical works.
He appealed to the Upper Tribunal. He was granted permission on two grounds. The first was that the demand was unlawful under the terms of the lease. The second was that the respondent had not consulted on the professional fees in relation to the major works.
Clause 1(e) of the lease stated that, "The Tenant shall pay to the Landlord on the usual quarter days in every year such sum in advance on account of the Service Charge as the Landlord or its accountants or managing agents (as the case may be) shall specify at their discretion to be a fair and reasonable interim payment.
The UT held that the true construction of clause 1(e) was that only one demand for a sum on account of service charge is permitted each service charge year, with that sum being payable by installments on the usual quarter days, per HHJ Johns KC at [15]. Accordingly, Mr Rose was not liable to pay the one off demand for the major electrical works.
In relation to the other ground, there were three firms which provided professional services in relation to the major works. Carbogno were engaged in the design of the electrical works, Monalco prepared the specification used for the contract tender exercise, and Bawtrys as managing agents dealt with the consultation process and liaison with the tendering companies.
The UT held that by virtue of section 20(1), the consultation requirements applied to "qualifying works", which was defined in section 20ZA(2) as "works on a building". The professional services were not "works on a building", and therefore those fees were not subject to the consultation requirements.
Read the full Judgment here.
