It is not uncommon to find, especially in older leases, a requirement for a service charge budget, annual expenditure or even accounts, to be certified or signed by a surveyor.  This can often be an onerous requirement and inevitably results in additional time (and costs) involved in what otherwise should, for many developments, be a normal and straightforward management function.

In the recent case of Kapadia and Others -v- Church Commissioners [2026] UKUT 220 (LC), the Upper Tribunal gave guidance on the meaning of a “surveyor” in this context and confirmed that a “surveyor” did not necessarily have to be a “qualified surveyor”.

Background

The case relates to the leaseholders of five flats on the Water Garden estate, part of the Hyde Park estate, owned by the Church Commissioners for England.  In May 2024 the leaseholders made an application to the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”) for a determination under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 of their liability to pay the service charges for the year ending 25 March 2021.

Under Paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule of the leases, the fixed percentage of the expenses outgoings and costs that the leaseholders were required to pay, i.e. the service charges, were to be “estimated from time to time by the Surveyor as likely to be incurred by the Lessors…in respect of any period ending on the Twenty Fifth day of March in every year (or on such other date as the Lessor may from time to time by notice in writing stipulate)”.  Therefore, “the Surveyor” was required to estimate the anticipated annual service charge expenditure for each financial year which would be payable in two on account payments.

Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule of the leases defined “the Surveyor” as “the Surveyor for the time being of the Lessors”.

The decision of the FTT

On 7 July 2025 the FTT decided that the leaseholders were liable to pay the service charges under 59 headings, albeit three of the charges were reduced but otherwise it was determined that the charges were reasonable and payable. 

The leaseholders appealed the FTT’s decision on five issues, one of which was whether the interim service charges were payable where the estimate was made by someone who was not a professionally qualified surveyor.

The individual who provided the estimates was a Mr Bell, who was an employee of Knight Frank, the then managing agents for Church Commissioners.  He held an undergraduate degree in countryside management, a master’s degree in real estate management and was a member of the Property Institute.  He had also worked in block management since 2016.  A chartered surveyor at Knight Frank reviewed and approved the draft budget prepared by Mr Bell which was then signed off and the demands based on it were prepared and served on the leaseholders.

The leaseholders had argued to the FTT that “the Surveyor” meant someone with professional qualifications or relevant experience and, as the person involved in preparing the budget in this instance had neither, then they were not liable to pay the on account payments.

The FTT rejected the leaseholders’ argument on the basis that the word “surveyor” in the lease was, in everyday language, “not limited to a person with professional qualifications”.  Therefore, there was no requirement under the lease for “the Surveyor” to have a specific qualification or to be a member of a professional body, and so the estimate prepared by Mr Bell was valid and the charges demanded based on that estimate were payable by the leaseholders.

The Upper Tribunal’s decision

Before the Upper Tribunal, the leaseholders’ argued that the FTT’s decision was incorrect for the following reasons :-

1. It did not properly account for the fact that the estimation of costs was not the only duty of the Surveyor under the leases, who was also responsible for carrying out apportionment and other functions which required specific expertise.

2. It did not consider the fact that the definition of “the Surveyor” in the lease itself included the word “surveyor”, and so needed to be someone who could be identified as a surveyor by way of professional qualification or experience.

3. As Mr Bell did not have the professional qualification or experience, then an estimate made by him was not compliant with the requirement set out in Paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule and so the leaseholders were not contractually obliged to pay the charges estimated by him.

The Upper Tribunal considered that the FTT’s definition of “the Surveyor” as “the person appointed by the Commissioners to carry out the tasks ascribed to that person under the lease” to be an incomplete description.  The Upper Tribunal stated that although the Commissioners can select the person, that person must be a surveyor as opposed to a dentist or a solicitor, for example.

The Upper Tribunal then went on to consider the question of what is a “surveyor”.

As the lease stated that references throughout to the singular also included the plural, and given the variety of duties which the Surveyor might be asked to undertake, the Upper Tribunal considered it unlikely that the Commissioners’ would choose only one person to carry out all of the functions of “the Surveyor”.

They considered that the “Surveyor can be different people for different purposes or more than one person for the same purpose”.  For example, one person may be appointed to decide which parts of the building are structural and which are non-structural and this does not have to be the same person instructed to resolve disagreements between neighbours or interpret the Estate rules.

The Upper Tribunal went on to say that the term “Surveyor” “covered a very wide range of activities, and that it was not necessary that the person selected must possess a particular professional qualification”.  They therefore considered Mr Bell to be an appropriate person to estimate the annual service charge expenditure and it was irrelevant “that he may have been unqualified to undertake other functions of the Surveyor”. The only time that the Commissioners’ selection could be open to challenge is “in the most extreme situations”, such as the Commissioners appointing a dentist or a vet.

The Upper Tribunal therefore dismissed this ground of appeal on the basis that the estimate provided by Mr Bell was valid and so too were the demands for service charge based on that estimate.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance when drafting a lease to ensure clarity and precision when it comes to the language and terms used, and to avoid ambiguity.  If the lease had specified that the term “Surveyor” did not mean someone who possessed a particular professional qualification, then that would have avoided any confusion and the matter being debated in the Tribunal along with the significant time and expense of doing so.

The decision is a welcome one nonetheless for landlords, RMCs, RTM companies and managing agents, confirming that it is not necessarily the case that a qualified “surveyor” would be required to undertake specific tasks referred to within the lease. Of course, every such task and lease needs to be considered on its own merits, but it is reassuring to see the Tribunals adopting a degree or pragmatism and common sense in this context insofar as the preparation of the service charge budget is concerned.

Disclaimer

This Legal Update describes the position in law as at the date of this article and care should be taken to note any subsequent amendments to the position as set out above.  The Legal Update is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of KDL Law or by KDL Law as a whole.