Upper Tribunal upholds £124,759.94 of 2019 major works charges after leaseholders’ appeal fails

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that scaffolding costs for 2019 exterior works at a Birmingham block were reasonably incurred, rejecting leaseholders' argument that cheaper access methods could have been used.

In Mohammed Naeem & Anor v Abacona Investments Limited [2026] UKUT 154 (LC), decided on 20 April 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dismissed an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Judge Elizabeth Cooke and Mr Mark Higgin FRICS FIRRV heard the case. Neither leaseholder was legally represented; the landlord was represented by its company secretary.

Background

Endwood Court is a nine-storey block of 36 flats in Birmingham, built in the 1960s. The appellants, Mr Mohammed Naeem and Mr Russell Smith, each hold a long lease of a flat. The landlord, Abacona Investments Limited, owns the freehold. The leases require the landlord to maintain the building and decorate the exterior, with leaseholders paying a service charge.

In 2024 the leaseholders applied to the First-tier Tribunal under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Only the 2019 charges remained in dispute. The landlord's cost for external redecoration of half the building was £124,759.94, and it had followed the consultation procedure in section 20 of the 1985 Act. Under section 19, service charges are payable only if the cost was reasonably incurred.

The question

By the time of the appeal, the only surviving challenge was to the cost of scaffolding. The leaseholders said the work could have been done much more cheaply, using cradles or a scissor lift instead.

The decision

The appeal failed. The First-tier Tribunal's reviewed decision of 22 July 2025 stands, and the cost of the 2019 exterior work was held to have been reasonably incurred.

The reasoning

The Upper Tribunal looked at the landlord's 2019 specification. It ran to 43 pages and included substantial repairs before decoration: replacing rotten timber, repairing or removing steel and timber windows, replacing broken glazing and sills, and hacking off old render. The leaseholders' own quotations were two-page documents covering only sanding, cleaning and painting.

The Tribunal found, as an expert tribunal and without needing expert evidence, that using cradles or a scissor lift for work of this kind was simply implausible. Removing windows, rectifying distorted windows and installing timber needs a firm working platform. The specified paints and finishes also needed weathertight working areas, which require scaffolding and sheeting. Scaffolding was needed across the building, not just part of it.

In a postscript, which was not the basis of its decision, the Tribunal also addressed the First-tier Tribunal's finding that roof space let for telecommunications equipment made cradles impossible. It referred to a 2003 letter from the landlord, which recorded that lessees had unanimously decided at a meeting that a letting should proceed. The letter said the £40,000 in premiums had been credited to lessees, that the service charge account had benefited from an annual payment, and that payments to 2003 of £64,000 had paid for water pumps, basement refurbishment and car park and grounds improvements. The leaseholders did not suggest the letter was untrue. The Tribunal said that, because the leaseholders had shared in the benefits of the lettings, it would not have found the scaffolding cost unreasonable even if cradles could have been used. Given its finding on the nature of the 2019 work, however, that point did not arise.

Sources

• Mohammed Naeem & Anor v Abacona Investments Limited [2026] UKUT 154 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 20 April 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/154