First-tier Tribunal dismisses claimant's appeal over prohibited payment
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a a person agent could charge a tenant for reasonable costs incurred in assigning a tenancy. In this case, the claimant argued that the £250 fee was a prohibited payment, but the tribunal found the costs were reasonable and dismissed the claimant's application.
⚖️ Legal holding
Under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, a payment is permitted if it does not exceed the reasonable costs of the landlord in respect of the assignment of a tenancy.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the £250 fee was reasonable considering the costs incurred by the landlord.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant sought recovery of a £250 payment from the letting agent, arguing it was a prohibited payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the letting agent had reasonably incurred costs in assigning the tenancy and thus denied the claimant's application.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AM/HTC/2024/0015 Property : Flat 33, St Aubin’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In person Respondent : [redacted] : N/A Type of application : Application for recovery of all or part of a prohibited payment – s.15 of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 3 December 2024
DECISION
2
The tribunal’s decision 1. The tribunal finds the sum of £250 was reasonably incurred by the
respondent in assigning the applicant’s tenancy at her request to
another prospective tenant. Therefore, the application is refused.
The application 2. This is an application by the applicant tenant pursuant to section 15 of the Tenant Fees Act 2019, seeking the return of the alleged prohibited payment of £250 paid to the respondent letting agent, in respect of the fees said to have been incurred by them, when replacing the applicant with another tenant on her giving notice of her intention to leave the property in order to live elsewhere. The hearing 3. As neither party requested an oral hearing this application was
determined on the documents provided by the parties.
The applicant’s case 4. In the application form the applicant asserted: [NAME_3] are charging their tenants unprohibited fees as per the Tenants Fee Act 2019. I moved out of the above named property on 12th April 2024, but in order to move out, I was charged £250 (£50 for referencing, £200 'reasonable Landlord costs'). This was due to me leaving a rolling AST contract (four tenants in total), with no formal rental period in place. Upon querying the additional £200, [NAME_2] responded that this was required for the 'set-up fee' which would be charged to the landlord for setting up a new tenancy, which includes contract, accounting and deposit. I asked [NAME_2] for a full cost breakdown (it states in the Tenants Fee Act that I am well within my right to do so), they responded that there is "no breakdown and the receipt would be in the form of an invoice from [NAME_2] to you". They failed to send me such invoice detailing each cost, particularly ones for third parties, which as I understand, they would have received
3 an invoice for. A former tenant moved out of the property on 13 December 2023, and [NAME_2] required £300 'set up fee costs', reflecting the arbituary (sic) nature of this issue and the way in which the agency operates. As the Tenants Fee Act states, "in any case, a landlord or agent should be able to demonstrate to you that any fee charged above £50 is reasonable and provide evidence of their costs. You should ask your landlord or agent to provide evidence in the form of receipts or invoices. Any costs that are not reasonable are a prohibited payment." [NAME_2] have failed to comply with the law in this situation and have not been able to demonstrate that the £200 fee is reasonable. Please note, we remarketed the room via SpareRoom, so this would not have been an additional cost incurred by the Landlord or [NAME_2]. The [NAME_5] have not communicated to us an expectation of length of stay at the property, nor is this referenced in our contractual agreement. It is both unlawful and highly inappropriate that [NAME_2] are charging tenants a fee to leave a property where there is no fixed term in place and they are violating the Tenants Fee Act. Even though Landlords/Agents can charge £50 per the Tenants Fee Act for referencing and changes to the contract, I would like to claim back the full £250 as this issue has made me sick with worry, unable to sleep and with a feeling of being trapped at the property unless I pay the fees.
5. The applicant subsequently paid the £250 required by the respondent
and moved out of the property. The applicant accepted that £50 would
be a reasonable charge but disputed that any greater sum was permitted
under the provisions of the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
The respondent’s case 6. The respondent asserted that it had incurred fees caused by the applicant
seeking to assign her tenancy to the applicant nominated replacement
tenant. The respondent asserted it was therefore not liable to return an
or all of £250 paid by the applicant.
7. In a letter dated 23 October 2024 the respondent provided a detailed
breakdown of the costs it had incurred, which included Time and
Resources; Property management Updates and Accountant fees had
been incurred for Processing paperwork and documentation; Legal
[NAME_4].
The tribunal’s reasons
8. Section 3 of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 states:
4
(1)For the purposes of this Act a payment is a prohibited
payment unless it is a permitted payment by virtue of Schedule
1.
9. Schedule 1 paragraph 6 states:
(1)A payment is a permitted payment if it is a payment—
(a)to a landlord in consideration of the variation, assignment or
novation of a tenancy at the tenant's request, or
(b)to a letting agent in consideration of arranging the variation,
assignment or novation of a tenancy at the tenant's request.
(2)But if the amount of the payment exceeds the greater of—
(a)£50, or
(b)the reasonable costs of the person to whom the payment is to
be made in respect of the variation, assignment or novation of
the tenancy,
the amount of the excess is a prohibited payment.
10. The tribunal finds that the respondent has reasonably accounted for the
fees it asserts it incurred, as a result of the applicant’s wish to assign her
tenancy to another prospective tenant. Therefore, the tribunal finds that
any sum in excess of £50 is not a prohibited payment.
11. In conclusion, the tribunal refuses the application.
Name: Judge Tagliavini
Date: 3 December 2024
5
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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The application should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp- pta-application-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands- chamber The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. 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. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Appoints Manager for Property with Maintenance Issues
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Association Granted Right to Manage Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Consulting Le…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Freeholder Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Ordered to Pay Landlord's Costs in Right to Manage Application
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Demands
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Entitled to New Lease Under Statutory Costs Determination
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Building Repairs
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 must pay reasonable costs incurred by the landlord.
- A RTM company is liable for reasonable costs incurred by a landlord.
- Service charges must be demanded in compliance with sections 47 and 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A landlord may charge a tenant reasonable costs for early termination of the tenancy.
- The costs incurred by the respondent in relation to a failed lease extension notice are reasonable and payable by the claimant.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ruled that the letting agent could charge the tenant for reasonable costs incurred in assigning the tenancy.
Who was involved?
The claimant, a tenant, and the letting agent were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the letting agent's costs were reasonable and thus dismissed the claimant's application.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Tenant Fees Act 2019, specifically sections 15 and Schedule 1 paragraph 6, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the letting agent's costs were reasonable under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any fees charged by a letting agent are reasonable and justified under the relevant legislation.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Documents showing the costs incurred by the letting agent in assigning the tenancy were crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions 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 complex legal issues.
