AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·04 June 2024

First-tier Tribunal Allows Landlord's Claim for Service Charges

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided in favour of the landlord, confirming that the service charge arrears claimed were reasonable and payable according to the lease agreement. The tenant did not contest the claim.

⚖️ Legal holding

Service charges claimed by a landlord are reasonable and payable if they comply with the terms of the lease agreement and there is no response from the tenant disputing the charges.

Topics

service chargeslease agreements

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined that the service charge arrears claimed by the landlord were reasonable and payable under the lease agreement.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that the landlord's claim for service charge arrears was reasonable and payable under the lease agreement, despite the tenant's failure to respond to the claim.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : LON/OOBE/LSC/2022/0212

Property : 6 [ADDRESS] ,[POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] : Determination as to payability and reasonableness of service charges

Tribunal Members : Judge Shepherd

Date and venue of : Paper determination on 7th December 2022 Hearing

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

1. This case concerns an application by G [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] (“the Applicant) close brackets for determination pursuant to section 27A of the landlord and tenant act 1985 as to the reasonableness and payability of service charges. The application relates to alleged unpaid service charges by the Respondent Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME]. The Respondent is the leaseholder of premises at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the premises”). This is a top floor flat in a period conversion consisting of three flats. It is alleged by the Applicant that the respondent has service charge arrears for the periods 2019 to 2022 inclusive. The total amount due is said to be £3684.87. Surprisingly the Respondent has failed to respond to any directions made by the tribunal and therefore this is an uncontested claim.

2. The following sums are claimed by the Applicant: [redacted]

2019 - £ 336.72 representing a third share of the expenditure on various standard service charge matters.

2020- £2436.32 representing a third share of expenditure on various standard service charge matters together with a share of major works costs in relation to roof repairs and electrical works.

2021- £490.02 representing a third share of expenditure on various standard service charge matters together with a share of major works costs in relation to project and management fees.

2022 -£421.81 – representing a third share of expenditure on various standard service charge matters.

3. The Applicant helpfully completed the Scott Schedule ordered in the directions notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent had failed to raise any objections to the sums sought. The schedule outlines why each charge is payable under the lease and when demands were sent for the sums due. In addition, in relation to the major works the s.20 notices and associated

documents are highlighted in the bundle. A statement outlines in more detail the claims made and a witness statement of [RESPONDENT] confirms that the Respondent’s lease is dated 4th March 1987; that the Applicant acquired the freehold on the property on 17th December 2021and outlines the relevant lease terms. A schedule of service charge arrears is attached to the statement.

Determination

4. Although the Tribunal did not have the benefit of an inspection or from hearing the parties it is clear that the Applicant has a sound claim for service charge arrears. The case is well prepared and the Respondent has failed to respond to it. The demands appear genuine and all of the costs are reasonable. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the sum of £3684.87 is due from the Respondent.

Judge Shepherd

7th December 2022

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions

1. A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.

3. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers 5. Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 10 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed8 cases

Dismissed2 cases

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 landlord's claim for service charge arrears was well prepared.
The service charge demands made by the landlord appeared genuine.
The landlord provided a Scott Schedule outlining why each charge was payable under the lease.
The landlord provided s.20 notices and associated documents for major works.
The landlord's witness statement confirmed the lease date, freehold acquisition, and relevant lease terms.

❌ Tends to be rejected

The tenant failed to respond to any directions made by the tribunal.
The tenant failed to raise any objections to the sums sought by the landlord.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision confirmed that the service charge arrears claimed by the landlord were reasonable and payable under the lease agreement.

Who was involved?

The case involved a landlord claiming service charge arrears from a tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the landlord because the tenant did not respond to the claim, and the charges were found to be reasonable and payable under the lease agreement.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The fact that the tenant did not respond to the claim and the charges were reasonable and payable under the lease agreement was the most important argument.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was in favour of the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their lease agreement clearly states the terms for service charges and respond to any claims made by the landlord.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included a Scott Schedule outlining the reasons for each charge and confirming the lease terms.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days of receiving the decision.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving lease agreements and service charges.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.