VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Claimant Declaration on Service Charges Owed

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted a declaration requested by the claimant regarding service charges owed by the tenant. The tribunal noted that while the service charges were agreed upon, costs must be claimed separately under specific regulations.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a declaration under section 81 of the Housing Act 1996 if the service charges owed are admitted or agreed upon by the tenant.

Topics

service chargesdeclarations

Provisions

Housing Act 1996 s.81Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.27A(4)Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.115A

📖 Technical summary

The claimant sought a declaration regarding unpaid service charges and costs. The tribunal granted the declaration but noted that costs must be claimed separately.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a declaration requested by the claimant regarding service charges owed by the tenant. The tribunal noted that while the service charges were agreed upon, costs must be claimed separately under specific regulations.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/00LC/LIS/2019/0054

Property

:

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[COUNSEL] LLP, solicitors

Respondent: [redacted]

:

Type of Application

:

Service charges and costs

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge D. Agnew

Date and venue of CMH

:

By telephone on Thursday 12th September 2019 at 10.00 am

Date of Determination

:

12th September 2019

DETERMINATION

2

Background

1. On 18th July 2019 District Judge Ellis in the County Court at Worthing transferred to the Tribunal the claim by the Applicant against the Respondent in respect of service charges for [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] and the claim for contractual costs. The claim was for a declaration under section 81 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the Housing Act”) that as at the date of the issue of proceedings the Respondents owed £3,126.62 in service charges.

2. Directions were issued for there to be a Case Management Hearing by telephone on 12th September 2019. Ms [NAME] of [NAME] [APPELLANT], solicitors appeared on behalf of the applicant and Mr [RESPONDENT] joined in the conference call. He confirmed that he also had authority to speak on behalf of Mr [RESPONDENT].

The hearing

3. Mr [RESPONDENT] confirmed that he and Mr [RESPONDENT] agreed that as at the date of the issue of the County Court proceedings they owed the sum of £3,126.62 in service charges as claimed. That being the case, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ceases as section 27A(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says that no application may be made in respect of a which has been agreed or admitted by the tenant. Consequently, the Applicant is entitled to the declaration it seeks under section 81 of the Housing Act and a County Court Order to that effect will accompany this determination.

4. The Respondents have continued to make payments to the Applicant since the issue of the County Court proceedings and Mr [NAME] agreed that the amount owing as at 7th August 2019 had reduced to £2326.62 as appeared on the statement of account produced by the Applicant’s managing agents.

5. The Respondents’ real dispute with the Applicant was as to the costs that they were seeking to recover from the Respondents. He said that they were always willing to pay a regular amount to reduce the debt and that there was no need for costs to be incurred in seeking to recover what was owed.

6. It is apparent, however, that the amount claimed in the County Court proceedings does not include a figure for costs. If those costs have been claimed as an administration charge they were not included in the statement of account. If they are to be claimed as contractual costs they will need to be claimed separately and the Respondents will be entitled to challenge those costs under Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

3 Dated the 12th September 2019

Judge D. Agnew

Appeals

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application 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

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 is entitled to a declaration if the service charges are admitted or agreed upon.
  • A landlord can be dispensed from consultation requirements if no undue prejudice is caused to tenants.
  • Tenants are entitled to avoid paying unreasonable administration charges.
  • A landlord may be exempted from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.
  • Tenants can receive a Section 20C order to prevent unjustified cost recovery through service charges.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • An application will be dismissed if the applicant fails to provide good reasons for missing the 21-day time limit for appealing an Improvement Notice.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal granted the claimant's request for a declaration regarding service charges owed by the tenant.

Who was involved?

The claimant and the tenant were involved in this case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the claimant because the service charges were admitted or agreed upon by the tenant.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1996 s.81 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.115A were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the service charges were admitted or agreed upon by the tenant.

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 any agreements on service charges are formalised and that any additional costs are claimed separately.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The agreement on the service charges and the relevant statutory provisions mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision must seek permission to do so within 28 days of receiving written reasons for the decision.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving service charges and declarations.

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.