ASHLEIGH COURT RIGHT TO MANAGE COMPANY LIMITED v (1) MS R DE-NUCCIO, (2) MR S RAIVADERA (3) MR N RANDALL (4) MR I SKIDMORE (5) MRS S LAMONT SKIDMORE
Decision date: 20 May 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 258 (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 an RTM company's statutory consultation under Schedule 4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003 was defective, invoking the s.20 ceiling on recoverable consultation costs, and whether two particular service‑charge items were properly disallowed or reduced by the First‑tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FtT's finding that the Stage 2 notice failed to specify reasonable place/hours and that estimates were not genuinely available for inspection, so the s.20 £250 limit applied. The FtT's substantive decisions disallowing the weed‑membrane/gravelling item and reducing the 2012 building maintenance charge were also upheld. The principal appeal and the two subsidiary appeals were dismissed.
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
The decision holds that compliance with Schedule 4 requires that the place and hours for inspection be reasonable in all the circumstances and that estimates must in fact be available for inspection free of charge during those times; mere substantial compliance will not avoid the statutory consequence under s.20. Prejudice to tenants is not for the FtT’s compliance determination but is relevant only to any application for dispensation under s.20ZA. The FtT was also entitled to assess disputed service charges against the statutory s.19 test of whether costs were reasonably incurred.
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 suggested that in judging reasonableness of inspection hours tribunals should consider the nature and resources of both landlord and tenants and that landlords may be expected to provide alternative means for those unable to attend. It also indicated that a s.20ZA dispensation inquiry should focus on the extent of prejudice to tenants from non‑compliance rather than solely on the seriousness of the breach.