Albemarle Ealing No.1 Limited v Tawfeek Fahim & Ors
Decision date: 23 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 408 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned challenges to service-charge demands for major works, fire doors and lifts at Greystoke Court and whether those advance demands were reasonable and payable. The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's refusal to decide the major-works payability and held the August 8, 2024 major-works demand unreasonable and not payable; only one sixth of the fire-doors charge and one third of the two lift charges were payable, with the remainder not payable, and an emergency-lift charge was not shown to be reasonably incurred. The UT also set aside the FTT's unexplained deduction for instalment insurance and held the 2021–22 insurance cost payable in full.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where a service charge is demanded in advance the tribunal must decide whether no greater amount than is reasonable was demanded; an advance demand may be disallowed if the landlord’s specification is inadequate so as to prevent assessment of reasonableness. A dispensation from consultation does not permit recovery of charges that are not reasonable in amount, and where only part of works have been carried out only the proportion of costs reasonably incurred and proved is recoverable.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment indicates it is not the tribunal’s role to supply missing specification details for a landlord or to adjourn and direct the landlord to produce further evidence where the landlord has not sought that relief; and that evidence of later service-charge arrears is irrelevant to whether an advance charge was reasonable when demanded.