Tribunal Partially Allows Service Charge Claims for Tenancy in Havant
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on whether certain service charges were reasonable for a tenant. They found that some charges were fair, but others were not allowed due to lack of authority under the lease agreement.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to challenge unreasonable service charges under section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as seen in this case involving £19,990 in disputed charges.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal partially allowed the claimant's application regarding service charges, finding the landlord could not recover solicitor's fees but was entitled to some contribution.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the reasonableness of service charges totalling £19,990 for various years, finding some charges reasonable while others were deemed unreasonable under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/00HN/LSC/2022/0096
Property
:
[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
Respondent: [redacted]
:
Type of Application
:
Determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges: section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Tribunal Member
:
Judge [NAME] of Hearing
: 28 April 2023 Havant Justice Centre Date of Decision : 28 April 2023
Decision
2
1. The Applicants seek a determination of liability to pay and the reasonableness of service charges totalling £19,990 pursuant to section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, for service charge years: 1 September 2019 – 31 August 2020 1 September 2021 – 31 August 2022 1 September 2022 – 31 August 2023
2. The Application was heard at Havant Justice Centre on 28 April 2023. The Applicants attended in person. Mr [COUNSEL] and Mr [COUNSEL], Directors, appeared for the [COMPANY]. Mr [COUNSEL] was also in attendance. The Applicants supplied the bundle of documents
3. At the beginning of the hearing the Tribunal explained the extent of its jurisdiction and explored with the parties possible options for moving forward. The Tribunal then heard from the parties in respect of the three disputed matters identified by the Applicants.
4. The Tribunal announced its decision and determined as follows:
i. Year ended 31 August 2020, Costs of £190 for unblocking the drain: Miss [APPELLANT] accepted liability to contribute to the costs of £190.
ii. Year ended 31 August 2022, Costs of £1,000 for solicitors fees in connection with legal action against the Respondent. The Tribunal found that there was no authority under the lease to recover the solicitor’s fees. The Tribunal, therefore, determined that Miss [APPELLANT] was no liable to pay a contribution of £125 towards legal fees.
iii. Year ended 31 August 2023, costs of £18,800 for surveyor’s fees and repair works to Flats 6 and 8. Miss [APPELLANT] accepted that these matters had not crystalised as service charges, and did not pursue the dispute in respect of these costs.
iv. The Tribunal Ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Applicants with £100 in connection with the Tribunal fees of £300 incurred. The Respondent to pay this amount within 35 days from the date of this decision.
3 RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £923,466 Service Charge for Cliftonville Flats
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Approves £2,950 Service Charges for Major Works in Bournemouth Pro…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Manchester Tribunal Allows Service Charge Determination for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charges Reasonableness Determined by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £10,415+VAT Dispensation for Major Works Consultation in Bo…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Decision — Case 4134077
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reviews Service Charge Reasonableness
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Reasonableness of Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Payability and Reasonableness of Service Cha…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Reasonable Insurance Commissions for Leasehold…
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 accepted liability for the £190 cost of unblocking the drain.
- The tribunal found the lease did not allow recovery of solicitor's fees for legal action against the tenant.
- The tenant was not liable to pay £125 towards legal fees because there was no authority under the lease.
- The tenant accepted that surveyor's fees and repair works for flats 6 and 8 had not yet become service charges.
- The tribunal ordered the landlord to reimburse the tenant £100 for tribunal fees.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal partially allowed the tenant's challenge to service charges, ruling that the landlord could not recover solicitor's fees but could recover some costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over service charges totaling £19,990, including costs for solicitors' fees and surveyors' fees.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord could not recover solicitors' fees but could recover some costs under section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the landlord had authority under the lease to recover solicitors' fees.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partially for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be able to challenge unreasonable service charges under section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.
