VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Dismisses Tenants' Service Charge Challenge

Case No.

📌 In brief

Tenants challenged service charges but later agreed to pay them, considering them reasonable and payable. The tribunal accepted their agreement and closed the case without ordering costs.

⚖️ Legal holding

Tenants must pay service charges if they are deemed reasonable and payable.

Topics

service chargesLandlord and Tenant Act 1985

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.27A

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal dismissed the application regarding service charges.

📜 Headnote Official document

Tenants applied to challenge service charges but withdrew their application, accepting the charges as reasonable and payable under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The tribunal agreed to the withdrawal and made no order for costs.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI43UE/LSC/2022/0114

Property

:

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants

:

[redacted]

:

[COMPANY]

Respondents

:

[redacted]

:

[NAME] of Application

:

Determination of Service charges Section 27A of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Members

:

Judge H Lumby Judge D Whitney Mr C Davies FRICS

Venue

:

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of decision

:

26 April 2023

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal agrees to the withdrawal of the application by the Applicants on the basis that they accept the service charges levied to date are payable and reasonable. (2) The tribunal makes no order for costs in relation to the application on the basis that the parties have agreed that they will each bear their own costs. Reasons 1. The hearing was attended by both the Applicants and Mr [NAME] on behalf of the Respondents. The hearing was very short on the basis that the parties had reached agreement between them before the hearing. The tribunal was provided with an email exchange between the parties’ solicitors recording the terms agreed between them.

2. The agreement reached was that the Applicants would withdraw their application on the basis that they accepted the service charges levied to date. The parties had agreed that there should be no order in respect of costs in relation to the transaction as each party would bear their own.

3. The parties present confirmed that the terms of the agreement were agreed and requested a decision reflecting this. The tribunal was satisfied with that agreement and so agreed to make the decision set out above. 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]

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.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

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 tribunal agreed to the withdrawal of the application because the applicants accepted the service charges were payable and reasonable.
  • The tribunal made no order for costs because the parties agreed to bear their own costs.
  • The parties confirmed their agreement terms and requested a decision reflecting it.
  • The tribunal was satisfied with the agreement reached by the parties.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to dismiss the tenants' application regarding service charges.

Who was involved?

The tenants and landlords were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to dismiss the application because the tenants agreed to pay the service charges, considering them reasonable and payable.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the tenants' acceptance of the service charges as reasonable and payable.

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

The decision was against the tenants who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should carefully consider whether the service charges are reasonable and payable before challenging them.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The email exchange between the parties' solicitors recording the terms agreed between them mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so within 28 days after receiving written reasons for the decision.

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

Yes, it is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

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.