VadeLab
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Calculates Service Charges and Reserve Funds

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on the amount of service charges and reserve funds owed by a tenant. The tribunal took into account the limitation period and calculated the exact sums due.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have service charges and reserve funds calculated according to the terms of their lease agreement.

Topics

service chargesreserve fundslimitation

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal calculated the amounts due for service charges and reserve funds, considering limitation issues.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the amounts due for service charges and reserve funds for a property, taking into account limitation issues. The decision was made by Judge Shepherd on 27th January 2023.

📚 Full judgment Official document

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : LON/00BK/LSC/2022/0154

Property : 2 [APPELLANT], London [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted] Determination as to the reasonableness and payability of service charges.

Tribunal Members : Judge Shepherd Stephen Mason FRICS

FURTHER DETERMINATION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

1. Following the Tribunal’s determination dated 29th November 2022 the parties made submissions in relation to the sums due once Limitation is taken into account. The Tribunal calculates that the following sums are due:

2. The sums due in service charge and reserve fund for the period December 2016 to June 2017 is £4368.48 taking into account payments made by the Respondents.

3. The sums due in service charge and reserve fund from September 2017 onwards are £29511.69.

4. Accordingly, the total sum due is determined at £33880.17.

5. Mr [NAME] sought in his further submissions to raise the issue of s.20B. In his evidence to the Tribunal he admitted that he had received demands that he had originally said he had not received. S.20B was not an issue pursued by the Respondents. Even if it had been it’s unlikely it would have been successful in allowing Mr [NAME] to avoid payment of sums due because the demands appear to have been made on time.

6. The Applicants have made an application for costs pursuant to Rule 13. Mr [NAME] should make any response to this application by 4 pm on 13th February 2023. He should confine his submissions to the question of costs as all other issues have now been decided. After receipt of his submissions the Tribunal will determine the issue of costs.

Judge Shepherd

27th January 2023

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 11 similar decisions in this collection:

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 tenant was liable for service charges and reserve fund payments from December 2016 to June 2017, totalling £4368.48.
  • The tenant was liable for service charges and reserve fund payments from September 2017 onwards, totalling £29511.69.
  • The total amount due from the tenant was determined to be £33880.17.
  • The tenant admitted receiving demands for payment that he had previously denied receiving.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The demands for payment appeared to have been made on time, which undermined the s.20B argument.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided the amounts due for service charges and reserve funds, taking into account the limitation period.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the terms of the lease agreement and the limitation period.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument about the limitation period was crucial in determining the amounts due.

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

The decision was against the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they understand the terms of their lease agreement and the limitation period.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Payments made by the tenant and the terms of the lease agreement were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.