Upper Tribunal rejects landlord’s appeal over unverified photographs in service charge case

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dismissed a landlord's appeal against a service charge ruling on major works, holding the FTT was entitled to prefer expert evidence over unverified photographs; it affects leaseholders and landlords.

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), in Agincourt Investments Limited v Natasha Joy Williams & Ors [2026] UKUT 292 (LC), decided on 3 August 2026 an appeal by the landlord of 19 Eglinton Hill, London SE18. Judge Elizabeth Cooke heard it on 1 July 2026.

Background

Major structural and external works began in January 2018 after a statutory consultation. The leaseholders of the five flats each pay one-fifth of the building's costs. After the works, a surveyor instructed by the leaseholders concluded that some items had not been done, had not been finished, or had not been done to a reasonable standard. The leaseholders disputed the charges, and in 2023 the landlord applied to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

The FTT heard the case on 4 to 6 November 2024 and decided it on 9 December 2024. It disallowed 19 items it found had not been done, allowed 50% of over 40 items it found could not be completed because of the landlord's failure to manage the project reasonably, and made other reductions.

The question

Permission to appeal was granted on one ground only: whether the FTT should have had regard to the landlord's photographs rather than dismissing them because it was unclear what they showed or when they were taken, and because no witness statement accompanied them.

The decision and reasoning

The appeal failed. The leaseholders had applied on 23 September 2024 to exclude the photographs as undated and unverified. The landlord therefore knew weeks before the hearing that their authenticity was challenged, yet produced no supporting evidence, and no application was made to call the landlord's director to speak about them.

The judge said a tribunal is less formal than a court and the rules of evidence are relatively relaxed, but it still needs evidence. A bundle of photographs alone was not evidence, and the landlord took a considerable risk in submitting it without a witness statement. The FTT could not accept new material offered in the middle of the hearing, because that would be unfair to the other party. It was therefore fair for the FTT to accept the leaseholders' expert's evidence.

The landlord also complained about late additions to the schedule of disputed items and about "misfiled" items. Permission had not been sought on these points, but the judge commented on them. Of 20 items the landlord said were new, all but nine were recorded as in dispute in the landlord's own July 2024 version. Of those nine, four (items 6.10 to 6.13) were shown as not in dispute, two did not appear in the earlier document and the FTT made no decision on them, and three (17.5, A42 and A49) appeared only in the October version. Those three involved £160, £264 and £1,480 respectively, which the FTT reduced by 50%. The judge said the complaint of a "hijack" appeared to be without substance.

By agreement, the FTT's decision was set aside for items 6.10 to 6.13. The judge will give directions to resolve the sums payable, failing which the matter will go back to the FTT only on the points the leaseholders queried.

Sources

• Agincourt Investments Limited v Natasha Joy Williams & Ors [2026] UKUT 292 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 3 August 2026