The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has set aside part of a First-tier Tribunal service charge decision because documents said to show section 20 consultation were not before that tribunal, in a dispute over a five-flat building.
Key facts
- Who: The freeholders and two leaseholders of flats at 22 Craufurd Rise, Maidenhead, in a dispute over roof-works service charges.
- From: Judgment date: 2 February 2026
- Source: Julia Beer & Anor v Daisy Dance & Anor, [2026] UKUT 46 (LC)
Background
In Julia Beer & Anor v Daisy Dance & Anor [2026] UKUT 46 (LC), decided on 2 February 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) heard an appeal about service charges at 22 Craufurd Rise, Maidenhead, a building converted into five flats. The freeholders, Ms Julia Beer and Mr Derrick Timms, appealed against a First-tier Tribunal decision of 6 March 2025. The respondents were Ms Dance, leaseholder of flat 1, and Mr Sandhu, leaseholder of flat 4. Neither side was legally represented on the appeal.
Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the regulations made under it, a consultation process must be followed for major works costing more than £250 per leaseholder in any one year. If it is not, the landlord can recover only £250 from each leaseholder in the relevant year.
An earlier First-tier Tribunal decision, dated 3 February 2022, set out emails sent to leaseholders in 2021 about roof repairs. It declined to decide whether the consultation requirements had been met because the challenge was raised too late, and directed Ms Dance to make a separate application if she wished to pursue it. She and Mr Sandhu did so in February 2024.
The question
The 2024 application challenged charges relating to roof repairs, drains and management fees. The judge was told the roof works cost £15,480. The charges demanded of the two leaseholders in total were £4,876 for 2021/22 and £2,016 for 2022/23.
The First-tier Tribunal said Ms Beer could not point in the bundle to evidence that the section 20 process had been followed. It was satisfied the works had been carried out, but not that consultation had taken place, and allowed only £250 per leaseholder per year. The appeal turned on whether there had been procedural unfairness to the freeholders.
The decision
The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision on the consultation point only and sent the matter back to that tribunal.
The reasoning
The freeholders said the hearing bundle reached them very shortly before the hearing on 13 February 2025, was not paginated, and that they could not find their way round it. The leaseholders accepted they had had difficulties putting the bundle together. They agreed that the freeholders' emails said to make up the consultation were left out by oversight, and that paragraphs 30 to 36 of the 2022 decision were not discussed at the hearing.
Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke said the appeal turned on a clear procedural irregularity: the documents relied on as the consultation were neither in the bundle nor brought to the First-tier Tribunal's attention. She described it as serious because that tribunal could not take relevant material into account. She therefore did not need to decide the freeholders' application to produce fresh evidence on appeal.
The judge said that if the leaseholders wish to pursue their challenge to the roof-works charges, they should ask the First-tier Tribunal for directions for a fresh hearing. It will be important for both sides to take great care that the bundle is complete and that all relevant material is brought to that tribunal's attention.
What this means for leaseholders and freeholders
- The decision does not say whether consultation was in fact carried out at this building. That question goes back to the First-tier Tribunal.
- In this case, missing documents and a late, poorly organised bundle led to the decision being set aside. Checking that a hearing bundle is complete and received in good time matters.
- Any appeal to the Court of Appeal needs permission. An application must reach the Upper Tribunal within one month of the decision being sent to the parties, with a different timing rule where a costs application is made within 14 days. If a deadline is close, get advice promptly.
Sources
- Julia Beer & Anor v Daisy Dance & Anor, [2026] UKUT 46 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 2 February 2026