VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Lease Variation and Adds Recoverable Costs Clause

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted a lease variation request, reducing a tenant's service charge contribution and adding a clause to recover costs and administration charges.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant's lease can be varied to align service charge contributions with other tenants and to include recoverable costs and charges.

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s.35

Any party to a long lease of a flat can apply to a tribunal to vary the lease if the lease does not provide satisfactorily for certain matters, including the repair or maintenance of the flat, building, or related land/buildings; insurance of the building or related land/buildings; repair or maintenance of installations necessary for a reasonable standard of accommodation; provision or maintenance of services necessary for a reasonable standard of accommodation; recovery of expenditure by one party from another for the benefit of that party or others; and computation of a service charge payable under the lease.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s.38

If the grounds for an application under section 35 are established to the satisfaction of the tribunal, the tribunal may make an order varying the lease in the manner specified in the application or another variation deemed fit by the tribunal. However, the tribunal cannot make an order varying a lease if it appears that the variation would substantially prejudice a respondent or non-party without adequate compensation, or if it would not be reasonable to vary the lease for any other reason.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal varied the lease to align service charge contributions and added a clause for recoverable costs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted an application to vary the lease clauses for a tenant, reducing the service charge contribution percentage from 10% to 9.75% and adding a clause for the recovery of costs and administration charges.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/LVL/2021/0007 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio)

P: PAPERREMOTE Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] LLP Respondent : [redacted] : N/A Type of [NAME] : Variation of a lease by a party to the lease Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 6 January 2022

DECISION

Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a determination on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P: PAPERREMOTE. A face-to- face hearing was not held because it was not requested, and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents that the Tribunal were referred to are in a bundle of 244 pages, the contents of which have been noted.

2 The tribunal’s summary decision (1) The tribunal grants the [NAME] to vary the clauses of the respondent’s lease in respect of (i) the variation of the percentage from 10% to 9.75% of the service charge payable by the respondent under clause 4(2) and (ii) the addition of a new clause 4(4) of the [NAME] of a provision for the recovery of costs and administration charges in the terms of the orders detailed below. (2) These lease variations are to take effect as of the date of this decision. Further, the tribunal directs that a memorandum of the said variations made by the tribunal’s Orders shall be endorsed on the respondent’s lease.

The [NAME]

1. This is an [NAME] by the [NAME] seeking a variation to the long lease held by the respondent dated 21 November 1984 of premises situate at [ADDRESS], London W14 (‘the premises’). The subject premises comprise a flat in a converted building of 10 flats over commercial premises. Background 2. The applicant asserts that the other 9 flats in the building are all subject to ‘new’ leases which specify the percentage of service charge payable based on the size of each flat. However, the respondent is required to pay a contribution amounting to 10% of the total service charges payable, thereby [NAME] the total collectable more than 100%. Consequently, the applicant seeks to reduce the respondent’s liability to contribute to service charges, by reducing the amount to 9.75% and in this way, [NAME] the total recoverable to be 100%.

3. Secondly, the applicant seeks a new clause in be included in the terms of the lease, [NAME] recoverable legal and administration costs and charges from the respondent lessee as the current lease is silent on the recoverability of such costs and charges. The applicant’s case 4. In support of the [NAME] the applicant provided the tribunal with a bundle of documents comprising 244 pages. This included a witness statement of [APPELLANT], director of the [COMPANY], dated 13 December 2021, and a witness statement also dated 13 December 2021 of [APPELLANT], a director of the [COMPANY],

3 who ‘adopted’ the contents of Mr [APPELLANT] statement. The tribunal was informed that the [COMPANY] is a lessee owned company with all lessees holding 1 share each and that new modernising leases had been granted to all lessees except the respondent, who despite expressing an interest in acquiring a new lease, had not followed this up with the applicant.

5. The tribunal were also informed that the respondent had a history of not paying his service charges either on time or at all and was as of 10 December 2020 in arrears of £8,677.14. However, due to the lack of a clause in the respondent’s lease allowing the recovery of contractual costs, the applicant was not able to effectively pursue the respondent for payment of the arrears, using the available legal processes due to the costs involved. In addition, the tribunal were informed of the other lessees at the current state of the respondent’s arrears as it was felt that they were effectively unfairly subsidising the respondent’s occupation of the said premises. The respondent’s case 6. The respondent failed to comply with the tribunal’s Directions dated 19 October 2021 and failed to provide the tribunal with any documentation or statement in opposition to the [NAME]. The tribunal’s decision and reasons 7. In [NAME] its decision the tribunal has regard to sections 35(2), (3A) and (4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 on which the applicant relies. The tribunal is satisfied that the respondent and all other lessees in the building have been made aware of this [NAME] and that the tribunal’s Directions dated 19 October 2021 have been sent to the respondent at the subject premises. The tribunal is also satisfied that none of the other lessees in the building have objected to this [NAME] and that the respondent has failed to provide the tribunal with any statement or other documentation setting out any agreement, with or objection to the [NAME].

8. The tribunal is satisfied that the reduction in the percentage payable by the respondent towards the service charges, requires to be varied to bring it into line with the other 9 leases and to ensure that no more than a total of 100% is collectively payable.

9. Therefore, the tribunal approves the use of the wording of variation put forward by the applicant and orders that Clause 4(2) of the respondent’s lease is to be varied in the following terms: The words ‘COVENANTS with the Landlord to pay one-tenth’ is to be deleted and substituted with the words COVENANTS with

4 the Landlord to pay on demand 9.75% or such other proportion as the Landlord deems reasonable in all the circumstances….

10. The tribunal is satisfied that in contrast to the provisions in the ‘new’ modernised leases grant to the lessees of the other 9 flats, the respondent’s lease fails to make any provision at all for the recovery of legal costs and administration charges. The tribunal is satisfied that the applicant and the other lessees are unduly prejudiced by this omission and is therefore satisfies that the requirements of section 35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 are met and exercises its powers under section 38 of the 1987 Act. 111. Therefore, the tribunal orders that an additional Clause 4(4) is to be included in the respondent’s lease which is to state: The Tenant HEREBY COVENANTS with the Landlord to indemnify the Landlord against all costs charges and expenses (including solicitors costs barristers fees surveyors fees and county court cost or otherwise and also its own administration expenses) incurred by the Landlord in all and any action or remedy available to the Landlord in enforcing any of the Tenant’s failures to comply with any of their obligations hereunder.

11. The tribunal also orders that the variations specified above are to take effect as of the date of this Decision. Further, the tribunal directs that a memorandum of the said variations made by the tribunal’s Orders shall be endorsed on the respondent’s lease.

12. The tribunal considers whether there should be any order for compensation to the respondent in respect of the orders made, but finds that the respondent has failed to demonstrate any loss or prejudice as a result of the tribunal’s variations and orders.

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Dated: 6 January 2022

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.

5 If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 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 court allows changes to a lease if they align service charge contributions with other tenants.
  • The court permits landlords to bypass consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.
  • The court grants dispensation to landlords if the works are urgent and cannot be carried out by multiple suppliers due to proprietary systems.
  • The court supports tenants' rights to manage properties if they comply with statutory requirements.
  • The court rules in favor of claimants when urgent safety measures are required and consultation requirements can be dispensed.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors listed as all provided cases favored the claimants/appellants)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to vary the lease clauses for a tenant, reducing the service charge contribution and adding a clause for recoverable costs.

Who was involved?

The freeholder applied for the variation and the tenant was the respondent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the variation because it aligned the service charge contributions with other tenants and addressed the lack of a clause for recoverable costs.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 35(2), 35(3A), 35(4), and 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the need to align the service charge contributions with other tenants and to address the lack of a clause for recoverable costs.

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 might consider applying for a lease variation if their service charge contributions are misaligned with other tenants or if there is a need to add a clause for recoverable costs.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Witness statements and documentation regarding the service charge contributions and the need for a clause for recoverable costs were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision 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 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.