Uddin & Ors v Notting Hill Genesis [2025] UKUT 56 (LC) (19 February 2025)
The FTT had found that a group of NHG tenants were not liable to contribute towards the cost of services supplied by the freeholder. Some (depending on the precise wording of their tenancy agreements) were not liable to contribute towards the costs of lift maintenance and servicing undertaken by NHG.
The tenants occupied two blocks on the same (mixed-tenure) estate but did not have identical tenancy agreements. For some of the tenants, no copy of the tenancy agreement had been retained.
NHG appealed a decision of the FTT on two grounds:
1. That it had been wrong to find that the cost of services provided by the freeholder were not recoverable through the weekly service charge payable by all of the tenants.
2. That it had been wrong to find that the reference to “daily building fabric” was not sufficient to oblige tenants to contribute towards the cost of lift maintenance.
Allowing NHG’s appeal in part, the Deputy Chamber President, Martin Rodger KC found that:
1. The meaning of “management fee” in the tenancy agreements did not stretch to the cost of a range of third party services (ie services provided by the freeholder).
2. The use of an abbreviation for such third party services was, however, ambiguous and evidence of a course of dealing between the parties created a liability to pay the cost of third party services.
3. The phrase “building fabric” was sufficiently broad to encompass lift maintenance works.
Tina was instructed by Devonshires.