0
Orbit Housing Association Ltd v Robert Vernon [2023] UKUT 156 (LC)
The Upper Tribunal has found that a “scheme-based support charge” of £18 per week charged to a tenant of sheltered accommodation for the over-55s was not reasonable and therefore not payable. The case highlights the importance – even in relatively low value disputes – of leading positive evidence to support a claim for service charges.
The Respondent was the tenant of the Appellant. His tenancy agreement recorded that the weekly payments for his property included a “scheme-based support charge” of £18 per week. The Respondent maintained that no services were provided to him in return for the charge. He made an application to the FTT under s. 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 challenging the reasonableness and payability of the charge.
A contested hearing took place in the FTT, with the Respondent acting in person. The Appellant led no written evidence about what the charge related to; whilst its pleadings identified three matters which were said to be covered by the charge, a housing officer told the FTT that this was not correct. The FTT therefore held that no services had been shown to be provided and therefore none of the £18 p/w was a reasonable charge (s.19, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985).
The landlord appealed. It recognised that there was a lack of evidence to support its case and therefore sought permission to introduce new evidence on appeal (r.16, UT(LC) rules). The Upper Tribunal dismissed that application because the new evidence did not meet the conditions in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1489 and, in any event, it simply consisted of a bundle of contracts without any explanation as to how it was said that this evidence showed what services were actually provided.
The Upper Tribunal then dismissed the substantive appeal. The tenant had repeatedly made clear that his case was that he did not receive any services in exchange for this £18 p/w charge. That evidence was, in effect, unchallenged because the landlord had failed to lead any written evidence whatsoever about what services were provided. Faced with that scenario it was obvious that the FTT had been entitled to conclude that nothing could reasonably be charged to the tenant.
A copy of the Upper Tribunal’s decision may be accessed here.
Justin Bates and Harley Ronan, instructed via Advocate (formerly the Bar Pro Bono Unit), acted for the Respondent.
