VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Orders Service Charge Refunds for Leaseholders

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ordered refunds of service charges to leaseholders of flats after determining the charges were unreasonable. This decision followed a previous ruling on the same property.

⚖️ Legal holding

Leaseholders are entitled to refunds of service charges if the charges are deemed unreasonable or excessive.

Topics

service chargesleasehold disputes

Provisions

Sections 27A and 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ordered refunds of service charges to leaseholders based on previous determinations.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal ordered refunds of service charges to leaseholders of flats based on previous determinations regarding the reasonableness of charges. Judge Tildesley OBE, First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/00ML/LSC/2023/0040 CHI/00ML/LSC/2023/0031 CHI/00ML/LSC/2023/0064

Property

:

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Miss [NAME] C & L [APPELLANT] [NAME] [COUNSEL] T Lee

Representative

:

[COUNSEL] (For Flat 5)

Respondent: [redacted]

:

[NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] of Application

:

Liability to pay service charges and limitation of landlord’s costs. Sections 27A and 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

Tribunal Member

:

Judge Tildesley OBE Hearing Venue & Date : Havant Justice Centre 21 June 2023

Date of Decision

:

21 June 2023

DECISION Rule 35 of Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013

2

1. The Tribunal received applications from the leaseholders of Flats 3, 5 and 6 seeking a determination of the payability and reasonableness of service charges for the years 2021 and 2022. The matter in dispute related to the costs of major works which had been the subject of a Tribunal decision (CHI/00ML/LSC/2022/0033) for Flat 10 published on 12 November 2022.

2. The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing on 21 June 2023 at 2pm at Havant Justice Centre to explore whether the parties can reach a settlement based upon the Tribunal’s determination for Flat 10.

3. [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] attended the hearing via the [NAME]. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] appeared in person for the Respondent. The Tribunal understands that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] was unable to attend the hearing but that he agreed with the making of the proposed Order. The Tribunal decided to proceed in the absence of [NAME] [NAME] and if he objects to the Order he must do so in writing to the Tribunal within 7 days from the date of this decision.

4. The Tribunal proceeded to make an Order on the following terms to dispose of the proceedings and in full and final settlement of the Applicants’ applications pursuant to rule 35 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013.

The Tribunal consents to the following Order being made.

5. The Respondent shall pay by way of refund of service charges within 28 days from the date of this decision to each Applicant as follows:

• [APPELLANT] of Flat 3 the sum of £9,983.48 • [COMPANY] of Flat 5 the sum of £6,655.65 • [NAME] [NAME] of Flat 6 the sum of £8,874.20

6. In addition the Respondent shall reimburse each Applicant the Tribunal Application fee of £100 within 28 days.

📊 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 claimant is entitled to refunds of service charges if the charges are unreasonable or excessive.
  • Administration fees for ground rent collection are not recoverable unless specifically provided for in the lease agreement.
  • Tenants are entitled to reductions in service charges if the landlord acts unreasonably.
  • Landlords can be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary without causing relevant prejudice to leaseholders.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • No significant factors identified in the provided cases that went against the claimant.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision ordered refunds of service charges to leaseholders of flats.

Who was involved?

Leaseholders of flats and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on previous determinations regarding the reasonableness of service charges.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 27A and 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the determination of the reasonableness of the service charges.

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

The decision was for the leaseholders.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be entitled to a refund if they can prove their service charges are unreasonable.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Previous determinations regarding the reasonableness of service charges were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.