First-tier Tribunal Determines Reasonableness of Service Charges
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the reasonableness and payability of service charges for a property. The decision was made by Judge a person on 16 September 2020.
⚖️ Legal holding
Service charges are payable if they are reasonable and calculated according to the terms of the lease.
📖 What the law says
The term 'service charge' refers to an amount paid by a tenant for a dwelling, either as part of or in addition to the rent. This charge can cover services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance, or the landlord's management costs. Additionally, a portion of the service charge can vary based on the relevant costs, which include expenses incurred or to be incurred by the landlord related to these services.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the reasonableness and payability of service charges under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal decided on the reasonableness and payability of service charges for two periods under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The decision was made by Judge Phillip Barber on 16 September 2020.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00BU/LSC/2019/0110
Property : Unit 234, 2 Moorfields, [POSTCODE]
Applicants : [redacted]
(Mr [RESPONDENT])
Respondent: [redacted] Section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Tribunal Member : (Judge) [NAME];
(Valuer) [NAME] : 16 September 2020
_______________________________________________
DECISION AND REASONS ____________________________________
Decision The Service Charge payable for the period 01/05/2018 to 31/12/2018 is £868.50 and the Service Charge payable for the period 01/01/2019 to 31/12/2019 is £1,812.06. The administration charge remains payable in the sum of £36.
Reasons The Law 1. In relation to the Tribubal’s jurisdiction over the payment of the service charge, the law is contained in sections 18 and 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as follows:
18.— Meaning of “service charge” and “relevant costs”. (1) In the following provisions of this Act “service charge” means an amount payable by a tenant of a [dwelling] 1 as part of or in addition to the rent— (a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance [, improvements] 2 or insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs. (2) The relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a superior landlord, in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable. (3) For this purpose— (a) “costs” includes overheads, and (b) costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period.
27A Liability to pay service charges: jurisdiction (1) An application may be made to [the appropriate tribunal] 2 for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to— (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable.
2.
Accordingly, our powers are limited to determining the reasonableness and payability of the service charge under the terms of the applicants’ leases. There was no dispute that the applicant is liable to make payments in respect to the service charge and that the proportion as calculated were in accordance with the terms of the lease. The issue for the Tribunal, therefore was whether the amounts were reasonable and payable as set out in the various service charge demands.
Our Assessment of the Application 3. The parties are generally in agreement as to how the application under section 27A should be disposed of. The Applicants claimed that, in relation to the service charge for the years 2018 and 2019, the wrong square footage of the property had been used (347 as opposed to 266) to calculate the proportion payable for unit 234.
4. In its statement of case sent on the 26 May 2020, the Respondent accepts that claim and has amended the service charge payable for the period ended 31 December 2018 to £868.50 from £1,132.92 and for the period ended 31 December 2019 to £1812.06 from £2,363.85.
5. The Applicant’s statement of case refers to a charge of £1,301.63 for the 2018 period but we are satisfied that this figure has been amended down in any event, in November 2019 to £1,132.92 (albeit based upon the wrong square footage).
6. It follows that the Tribunal makes a decision in the above terms and which disposes of all issues under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Schedule 11 7. There remains the dispute over the £36 administration charge and the application under schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The power and jurisdiction of the Tribunal under schedule 11 is couched in similar terms to those contained in section 27A and do not need to be set out in any detail.
8. The Tribunal finds that there is a contractual obligation on the part of the Applicants to pay such a charge under paragraphs 7.1 and 16.1 of Schedule 4 to the Lease and that the amount was reasonably levied on the 15 November 2018. In our view, even taking account of the fact that the wrong square footage was used by the Respondent, the Applicants were aware that some service charge would be payable for the year or years in question and ought to have made a payment in any event. For that reason alone, it would be wholly unconscionable to prevent the Respondent from collecting its reasonable costs, which we assess at £36, in defending this application and follows that it was reasonable to levy the administration charge and that the amount is reasonable and payable.
9. There was no application under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. [NAME] 16 September 2020 Tribunal Judge
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Reasonable Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal rules on service charges and legal costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Residential Property Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charges Payability
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Payability
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Payability
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 service charge for 2018 was reduced because the wrong property square footage was used in the initial calculation.
- The service charge for 2019 was reduced due to the incorrect square footage being applied.
- The administration charge of £36 remains payable because the applicants had a contractual obligation to pay it.
- The administration charge was reasonably levied because the applicants were aware some service charge would be due and should have made a payment.
- It would be unfair to prevent the respondent from collecting reasonable costs for defending the application.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicants' initial claim for the 2018 service charge was higher than the amount the tribunal found had already been amended.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided the reasonableness and payability of service charges for two periods.
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 and the reasonableness of the charges.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 18 and 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the wrong square footage was used to calculate the charges was significant.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure their calculations are correct and reasonable.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The lease agreement and the service charge demands were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is recommended to get a solicitor for cases involving service charges.
