VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Corrects Minor Error in Tenant's Service Charge

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal corrected a small mistake in a service charge calculation, reducing the amount owed by the tenant. This case highlights the importance of accurate service charge calculations in property management.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have improper charges excluded from their service charges.

Topics

service chargesproperty management

Provisions

Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

📖 Technical summary

The First-tier Tribunal corrected a minor error in a service charge calculation, reducing the amount owed by the tenant.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal corrected a minor error in a service charge calculation, reducing the amount owed by the tenant from £1,692.40 to £1,690.67 due to an improperly included insurance charge.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) and IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WANDSWORTH, sitting at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Case reference : LON/00AY/LSC/2020/0153 County court claim numbers : E89YX446 F06YX786 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : V: CVPREMOTE Property : Flat 21 [APPELLANT], 245 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant/Claimant: [redacted] Respondent/Defendant : [redacted] : Service and Administration Charges – transfer from County Court Tribunal members : Judge Nicol Ms S Coughlin MCIEH Date of decision : 4th January 2021

NOTIFICATION OF AMENDED DECISION

(1) On 17th November 2020 the Tribunal purported to determine that the sum of £1,692.40 is payable by the Respondent to the Applicant in respect of service and administration charges. (2) The Applicant had conceded that [NAME] was not payable as a service charge. In the year 2016-17, £68.35 had nevertheless been included in the service charges. The Respondent’s share of £1.73 had been included in the Applicant’s claim. (3) The Tribunal mistakenly omitted to exclude this sum. Therefore, the amount payable by the Respondent to the Applicant in respect of service and administration charges must be reduced by £1.73 from £1,692.40 to £1,690.67 and the Tribunal’s decision is amended in

2 accordance with rule 50 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. (4) The court order is similarly amended under the slip rule.

Name: Judge Nicol Date: 4th January 2021

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. 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. 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]. 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. 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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 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 can challenge improper charges in their service fees.
  • Urgent works that pose significant safety risks can bypass consultation requirements.
  • Incorrectly completed landlord notices proposing rent increases can be contested by tenants.
  • Housing providers can sometimes get dispensation from consultation requirements under specific conditions.
  • Tenants are entitled to the repayment of a holding deposit if the landlord breaches the Tenant Fees Act 2019 requirements.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • No clear factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to reduce the service charge owed by the tenant by £1.73.

Who was involved?

The case involved a landlord and a tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to correct a minor error because an improper charge was included in the service charges.

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 that an improper charge should not be included in the service charges.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that all charges included in their service charges are proper and justified.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents related to the service charge calculation mattered.

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 involving 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.