The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) re-heard sixteen disputed service charge items after new evidence emerged, allowing some charges in full, reducing others and disallowing one. It affects leaseholders and RTM companies.
Key facts
- Who: Leaseholders and right to manage (RTM) companies in service charge disputes
- From: 24 July 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: 91 Outram Road RTM Company Limited v Gary Sharpe [2026] UKUT 279 (LC)
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) gave its decision on 24 July 2026 in [2026] UKUT 279 (LC), an appeal by way of re-hearing from the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) in its jurisdiction under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
91 Outram Road, Croydon, is a block of six flats, managed since 2015 by 91 Outram Road RTM Company Limited. Until 2023 it employed Prime Property Management Limited to manage the building and demand service charges. Mr Gary Sharpe holds long leases of flats 2 and 6.
In 2025 the FTT decided Mr Sharpe's application on whether service charges were reasonable and payable. Section 19 of the 1985 Act provides that service charges are not reasonable unless the relevant costs were reasonably incurred. Mr Sharpe challenged around 100 items demanded from 2015 to 2023.
At the FTT hearing the RTM company's director could not retrieve information from Prime. In some cases the company could not produce documents showing the work had been done, and those charges were disallowed. After the hearing he retrieved documents from Prime.
The Upper Tribunal gave permission to appeal and permission to rely on the new evidence for sixteen items. The appeal was a re-hearing of those items only. It said no issues of law arose and decided each item on the evidence.
Among the outcomes:
- Major works (two items): The FTT had restricted recovery to £250 per leaseholder because the director accepted that section 20 notices had not been served. The new evidence included the notices. Mr Sharpe said consultation was not done properly but produced no evidence. The Upper Tribunal found the notices properly served and the whole expenditure recoverable, including £4,696 for decorating, carpeting, post boxes and Prime's fees.
- Management fee: The FTT had reduced the £1,200 by 25% for poor service. Mr Sharpe gave no examples of poor service, so the Upper Tribunal found the fee payable in full.
- Drone survey: The FTT had excluded the £180 charge, accepting that it was agreed to be free. Neither party adduced any evidence to support their contentions. The Upper Tribunal found the survey was procured by Prime after a quotation and preceded roofing works, so the charge was payable.
- Roofing works: The parties agreed a 20% reduction. The FTT had applied 50% in error, so £1,080 of £1,350 was allowed.
- Roof debris clearance: The £300 charge was not payable through the service charge, as the roof was accessible only from flat 5.
- Door knocker and emergency lights: Set at £90 (from £180) and £55 (from £180), the sums the parties accepted or agreed.
The FTT's decision was set aside to the extent the re-hearing differed. The Upper Tribunal said it could not compel Mr Sharpe to pay any outstanding charges; that remedy would need an application to the County Court.
What this means for leaseholders and RTM companies
- In this case, charges were decided item by item on the evidence, and the outcomes differed: some allowed, some reduced, one disallowed.
- On the items where Mr Sharpe alleged poor service or defective consultation, he produced no evidence, and the Upper Tribunal did not accept his position.
- In this case, documents retrieved after the FTT hearing, including the section 20 notices, led the Upper Tribunal to allow the major works charges in full.
- Any party may appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, with permission. An application must be received by the Upper Tribunal within one month after the decision is sent to the parties. If a costs application is made within 14 days of the decision being sent, the application for permission must be made within one month of the date the Tribunal's costs decision is sent.
Sources
- 91 Outram Road RTM Company Limited v Gary Sharpe [2026] UKUT 279 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 24 July 2026