Claimant Ordered to Pay VAT on Respondent's Costs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided that the tenant must pay VAT on the landlord's costs because the landlord is VAT registered. This means the tenant has to pay more money to cover the landlord's expenses.
⚖️ Legal holding
The claimant must pay VAT on the respondent's costs as the respondent is VAT registered.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal assessed the costs payable by the claimant and included VAT in the final sum.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) assessed the costs payable by the claimant, including VAT, due to the respondent's VAT registration status. The claimant must pay the total sum to the respondent by a specified deadline.
📚 Full judgment Official document
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LSC/2018/0044 Property : Flat 19, [NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In person Respondent : [redacted] : [COMPANY] (managing agents) Type of [NAME] : [NAME] for costs order under Rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 Tribunal members : Mr [NAME] (Tribunal Judge) Date of supplemental decision : 10 October 2019
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal summarily assesses the costs payable by the applicant in the sum of £6,391.81 (Six Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety-One Pounds and Eighty-One Pence), including VAT. This sum must be paid to the respondent by 24 October 2019. Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 1. This decision supplements the Tribunal’s decisions dated 02 July 2018 (‘the 2018 Decision’) and 28 August 2019 (‘the Costs Decision’) and should be read in conjunction with those decisions.
2. In the Costs Decision, the Tribunal made the following costs order under Rule 13(1)(b) (ii) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 (‘the 2013 Rules’): “(a) The applicant shall pay 50% of the respondent’s costs from 21 May to 14 June 2018, summarily assessed in the sum of £5,326.51 (Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty-Six Pounds and Fifty-One Pence) plus any VAT. (b) The respondent shall notify the applicant and the Tribunal whether it is VAT registered and able to recover the VAT on its costs, as input tax, by 11 September 2019. The Tribunal will then issue a supplemental decision, specifying the final sum to be paid by the applicant. Payment will be due within 14 days of the supplemental decision.” 3. In an email to the Tribunal dated 13 September 2019, Mr [NAME] of [NAME] stated “We can confirm that [NAME] [COMPANY] is VAT registered and VAT should be paid on the costs award.” He subsequently clarified the position in an email dated 08 October 2019, stating “VAT is payable on the legal fees and has been paid on the legal fees. [NAME] [COMPANY] cannot recover VAT as it is not VAT registered and is not an operating company with a turnover greater than £85,000.” 4. The parties made further representations, via email, on 09 October 2019. The applicant submitted that VAT should not be payable, as respondent’s costs were paid via [NAME] which is VAT registered. In an email timed at 13.13, Mr [NAME] stated: “[COMPANY] “BEL” act as agent on behalf of [NAME] [COMPANY] “[NAME]” and were never a party to the contract between [NAME] and EGL. BEL holds funds on trust on behalf of [NAME] as required by s42 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which never formed part of BEL’s operational revenue. BEL cannot and does not recover VAT on transactions administered as agent for [NAME].”
5. The Tribunal agrees with Mr [COUNSEL]. It is the respondent’s VAT status that is relevant; not that of [NAME]. Given the respondent is not VAT registered, it
cannot recover VAT on its legal costs. It follows that the applicant must pay VAT of £1,065.30 in addition to the principal sum of £5,326.51. The total sum to be paid to the respondent is £6,391.81. Name: Tribunal Judge Donegan Date: 10 October 2019
Rights of appeal
1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
2. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].
3. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.
4. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Parts of Consultation Process for Major…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Boiler Repairs Can Bypass Section 20 Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Damp Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Right to Buy Freehold Interest Under Leasehold Reform Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Freehold Purchase Compensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Modern Flat at £915 Per Month
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Freehold Purchase Price at £37,988
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Permission to Purchase Freehold Interest Under Leasehold Ref…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation Order for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Appeal Against Improvement Notice and Gets Fees Reimbursed
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Freehold Premium
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Counsel that it is the respondent’s VAT status that is relevant, not that of another entity.
- Given the respondent is not VAT registered, it cannot recover VAT on its legal costs.
- The applicant must pay VAT of £1,065.30 in addition to the principal sum of £5,326.51, making the total sum £6,391.81.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant submitted that VAT should not be payable, as the respondent’s costs were paid via an entity which is VAT registered.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision determined that the claimant must pay VAT on the respondent's costs.
Who was involved?
The claimant, who is the tenant, and the respondent, who is the landlord, were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant must pay VAT because the respondent is VAT registered.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the respondent was VAT registered.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also have to pay VAT on their landlord's costs if the landlord is VAT registered.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Email communications between the parties and the tribunal regarding VAT registration status were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.
