Ambercrown Limited v Alexandra Perrett & Anor
Decision date: 5 June 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 158 (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 whether consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 had been complied with for roof works at Nutley Court and whether the FTT correctly limited recoverable costs to £250 per tenant. The Upper Tribunal found the FTT had failed to address the landlord’s evidence that an earlier consultation had taken place and, on the facts as agreed or admitted by the respondents, concluded the FTT lacked jurisdiction because the charges had been agreed or admitted. The FTT’s decision was set aside and the appeal allowed.
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
A tribunal deciding whether consultation requirements have been met must engage with and explain why contested evidence of an earlier consultation is insufficient before limiting a landlord’s recovery under the consultation provisions. Separately, where tenants (including tenant-shareholder directors) have agreed or admitted the charges in issue, the tribunal may lack jurisdiction to adjudicate those charges.
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, by way of illustration, that earlier consultation may in some circumstances cover later related remedial works (for example where both concern preventing water ingress), but such coverage depends on the factual analysis of scope and purpose. The notes also comment that case management and selection of issues for hearing (e.g. via a Scott schedule) can affect what a tribunal is obliged to decide.