91 Outram Road RTM Company Limited v Gary Sharpe

This is an appeal by way of re-hearing from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) in its jurisdiction under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

91 Outram Road, Croydon is a block of six flats. Since 2015 it has been managed by the appellant, 91 Outram Road RTM Company Limited, to which we refer as “the RTM Company”. Until 2023 it employed Prime Property Management Limited (“Prime”) to manage the building and demand service charges on its behalf. The respondent Mr Gary Sharpe holds long leases of flats 2 and 6.

In 2025 the First-tier Tribunal made a decision on an application by Mr Sharpe for it to determine whether service charges were reasonable and therefore payable. Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides that service charges are not reasonable unless the relevant costs were reasonably incurred. Mr Sharpe challenged around 100 items demanded in the years 2015 to 2023.

The FTT’s decision explained that the leases of flats 2 and 6 are in identical form containing the usual provision for payment of a service charge. It recounted the hearing at which the RTM company was represented by its director Mr Gary Butler (who is himself the leaseholder of flat 5). It is clear from the decision that Mr Butler had difficulties in answering the challenges made to a number of the service charges because he had been unable to retrieve information from Prime relating to the years when Prime was managing the building. As a result, in some cases the RTM company was unable to produce any documentation to show that the relevant work had been done and so charges were disallowed.

Following the hearing Mr Butler was able to retrieve documents from Prime. This Tribunal has given the RTM company permission to appeal and has also given permission for the new evidence to be relied upon in relation to sixteen service charge items where Mr Butler says that the new evidence demonstrates that the service charge was payable. As a result, the Tribunal has directed that this appeal be determined as a re-hearing of Mr Sharpe’s application in relation to those sixteen items only, so that the new evidence can be considered.

Permission to appeal was granted on 19 December 2025. Mr Sharpe did not serve a respondent’s notice until 18 June 2026, along with a request for it to be admitted out of time. Because this is a re-hearing the Tribunal gave permission for the respondent’s notice to be admitted. The hearing took place on 21 July 2026; Mr Buter represented the RTM company and Mr Sharpe appeared in person.

No issues of law arise in this appeal. We have structured our decision below by reference to the new items of evidence.

Invoice dated 7 February 2016 from Larry Bond - £400.00 for building work

The FTT accepted Mr Sharpe’s assertion that this work was not done, because Mr Butler did not remember whether the work had been done or not.

Mr Butler has now obtained a receipted invoice from Prime. It is headed ‘Invoice for materials for 91 Outram Road works’ and simply refers to specialist wall paint, stabilising solution and sundries. Mr Butler was certain that the invoice was for works undertaken and it was recorded in Prime’s records as ‘Internal Repairs’.

Mr Sharpe said that he did not believe the work had been carried out but produced no evidence in support of his position.

It is unlikely that Prime would have paid for work that was not done and we find on the balance of probabilities that the works were undertaken and, in the absence of anything to indicate that the expenditure was not reasonably incurred, the whole amount was recoverable in the service charge.

Invoices dated 20 April 2017, 14 June 2017, 15 August 2017 and 15 September 2017, £144.00 on each occasion for cleaning services provided by GS Rental

These four amounts can be taken together. They relate to communal cleaning services arranged by Mr Sharpe who confirmed that they had all been paid.

Mr Sharpe did not dispute that he was nevertheless liable for one-sixth of the cost in respect of each of his two flats. The amounts form part of the expenditure that is ordinarily recoverable in the service charge and the charge is payable.

Invoice dated26 June 2018 from Prime - £300.00 for a licence for alterations to flat 4

The FTT accepted that this invoice concerned a licence for alterations relating to an individual flat and found that should not form part of the service charge. This position is now accepted by both parties.

Undated invoice of £100.00 for plumbing

The FTT accepted that this amount was for plumbing services following a leak in an individual flat and found that it should not form part of the service charge. Mr Butler was unable to find the invoice and Mr Sharpe thought the cost was a matter for the individual leaseholder. We agree.

Invoice dated7 August 2018 from Swain Lock Services - £582.00 for work on the intercom

The invoice showed that over two visits the contractor had replaced parts and tested all the handsets. Mr Sharpe now accepts that he should meet his share of this item.

Invoice dated 10 December 2019 from L A Electrical - £1,620.42 for electrical works

This invoice relates to work to upgrade lighting. At the FTT hearing Mr Sharpe submitted that notices under s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 had not been served and it was recorded in the decision that Mr Butler had agreed that this was the case. Accordingly, the FTT restricted the amount recoverable to £250.00 for each lessee.

The new evidence includes copies of the relevant notices, but notwithstanding that Mr Butler is now able to demonstrate that the notices were served (on himself at least), Mr Sharpe maintained that the consultation required by the Act was not undertaken or was not done properly. No evidence was adduced by Mr Sharpe to substantiate his position.

It is likely that having prepared the notices, Prime served them. Mr Butler was served, and no-one else has suggested that the notices were not served. We are satisfied that the notices were properly served and that the whole expenditure is recoverable as part of the service charge.

Undated (2022) £4,696.00 for major works (decorating, carpeting, post boxes and Prime fees)

This item concerns internal decorating, carpeting of common parts, installation of a post box and notice board together with the associated project management fees. In common with item 9 above, at the FTT hearing Mr Sharpe submitted that the requisite notices under s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 had not been served and it was recorded in the decision that Mr Butler accepted that this was the case. Accordingly, the FTT restricted the amount recoverable to £250.00 for each lessee.

The new evidence includes copies of the relevant notices and supporting correspondence, but again Mr Sharpe maintained that the consultation required by the Act was not undertaken or was not done properly. Nothing was adduced in evidence by Mr Sharpe to support his position.

On the evidence submitted by Mr Butler we find that the that the notices were properly served and that the whole expenditure should be recoverable as part of the service charge.

Undated (2022) from Prime - £1,200.00 management fee

These invoices relate to the quarterly charge of £300.00 levied by Prime for managing the building. The FTT accepted Mr Sharpe’s request that the charges be reduced by 25% because in his view the service from Prime was deficient. He maintained that stance in this appeal but without any evidence to support his assertion. Mr Butler disagrees. It may well have been the case that the service from Prime was inadequate and we note that they were replaced by the RTM company the following year. But without evidence to show how they fell short – Mr Sharpe provided no examples of poor service – we find that the cost was reasonably incurred and the charge is payable in full.

Invoice dated 11 November 2022 from K.T.N. - £180.00 for drone survey

The FTT determined that this item should not be included in the service charge having accepted Mr Sharpe’s submission that it had been agreed that this service would be provided without charge. In this appeal Mr Butler stated that Mr Sharpe was mistaken about the terms on which K.T.N. were engaged. Mr Sharpe said that he personally would have provided a free drone survey and, in any case, K.T.N. had erroneously surveyed the roof of a neighbouring building.

Neither party adduced any evidence to support their contentions and Mr Sharpe’s comments are nothing to the point. It is clear from the invoice that this service was procured by Prime after obtaining a quotation. We note that the survey preceded works by Sutton Roofing, and we therefore find on the balance of probabilities that the works were authorised by the managing agent and carried out. The charge is payable, and there is nothing to indicate that it was not reasonably incurred.

Invoice dated 20 November 2022 from Sutton Roofing - £1350.00 for roofing works

Both parties had agreed that this work was not done properly and a loss adjuster for the insurers had refused payment. The FTT allowed a 20% reduction. However, in error it reduced the allowable amount by 50%.

As the parties agree that the appropriate reduction is 20%, we determine that the service charge should include the sum of £1,080.00.

Invoice dated 14 December 2022 from JLM Maintenance Ltd - £300.00 for clearance of debris on roof

This invoice relates to the cost of retrieving a shoe and clearing broken glass from the roof adjacent to one of the windows in flat 5 (which is owned by Mr Butler). Mr Butler accepted that the roof was only accessible from his flat (which is let to tenants). Mr Sharpe’s position is that this charge can only be the responsibility of flat 5 and is therefore not payable by all the flats as part of the service charge. In light of the physical inaccessibility of the roof to any other tenants, we agree and find that this charge is not payable.

Invoice dated 1 February 2023 from Standy Services - £180.00 for supply and fitting of new door knocker

The FTT allowed this item as part of the service charge. Mr Butler submitted that the work had been done but the cost was excessive and possibly unnecessary. Mr Sharpe agreed. We determine the correct amount at £90.00.

Invoice dated 15 March 2023 from L A Electrical - £180.00 for testing emergency lights

The parties agree that the reasonable cost of testing emergency lights is £55.00.

The First-tier Tribunal’s decision is set aside insofar as our conclusions on the re-hearing differ from its findings. As a result of our determinations the RTM Company will now be in a position to identify the amount owed by Mr Sharpe and any refunds due to leaseholders. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to compel any leaseholder to make payment of any outstanding charges. That remedy (if required, and we hope it is not) will necessitate an application to the County Court.