91 Outram Road RTM Company Limited v Gary Sharpe
Decision date: 24 July 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 279 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
The Upper Tribunal allowed a re‑hearing by 91 Outram Road RTM Company and set aside parts of the FTT’s 2025 service‑charge determinations for 16 disputed items (2015–2023), finding on the balance of probabilities that many previously disallowed or reduced charges were properly incurred and recoverable, while others remained reduced or excluded (e.g. a licence for alterations, individual plumbing, roof clearance charged to a single flat). The UT directed adjustments to recoverable amounts (including specified reductions) and noted it could not itself compel payment.
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: medium
Where a managing agent’s receipted invoice and records are produced, the tribunal may conclude on the balance of probabilities that the work was carried out and the cost recoverable in the service charge absent contrary evidence; and production of section‑20 consultation notices after an initial finding of non‑service can support recovery of the full cost if no evidence disputes proper service and consultation.
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 tribunal commented that unsupported assertions of inadequate consultation or deficient management services, without evidential particularity, are insufficient to justify reductions to recoverable service‑charge items; and that practical access issues (for example where work is only reachable from a particular flat) can justify excluding a charge from communal recovery.