First-tier Tribunal Rejects Service Charge Applications
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a landlord could recover service charges if they were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. The respondents' applications for orders under s20C and paragraph 5A were dismissed.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord is entitled to recover service charges if they are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal dismissed the respondents' applications for orders under s20C and paragraph 5A.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the respondents' applications for orders under s20C and paragraph 5A, ruling that service charges were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. The decision was based on the outcome of the proceedings and the conduct of the parties.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/0oAG/LSC/2023/0302 Property : 75 and 76 Eton Hall, [ADDRESS], Nw3 2DH Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] [NAME] [COUNSEL] : [NAME] of [NAME] : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members :
Judge Niamh O’Brien Tribunal Member [NAME]. Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision (costs) : 22nd April 2024
DECISION
2 Decisions of the Tribunal (1) The Tribunal dismisses the Second Respondent’s applications for orders under s20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The [NAME]
1. The Applicant sought a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) as to the amount of service charges payable by the Respondents in respect of the service charge years 2017 to 2023. The hearing took place on 19th February 2024.
2. The Applicant was represented at the hearing by Mr [APPELLANT] of [APPELLANT] and [RESPONDENT] Solicitors. The First Respondent was not present and was represented by his sister Miss [RESPONDENT]. The Second Respondent appeared in person. In the course of the hearing the parties agreed that the only service charges which the Tribunal was being asked to determine were the sums claimed as ‘planned maintenance charge’ for the years 2017 to 2023. In a written decision dated 21 March 2024 the tribunal determined that the sums for the relevant years were payable, reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.
3. At the end of the hearing the Tribunal invited both parties to make written submissions in respect of the Respondent’s applications for determinations under s20C of the LTA 1985 and Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to CLRA 2002 in respect of the costs of the proceedings following receipt of the decision. Both parties have made submissions. The second respondent has filed and served 2 separate [NAME] forms in respect of her applications under both s20C LTA 1885 and paragraph 5A of schedule 11 to CLRA 2002 On both applications she has indicated that she is content for the applications to be determined on the papers and the Tribunal has treated these applications as the second respondent’s written costs submissions in Case ref LON/00AG/LGC/2023/0302.
4. The Second Respondent relies on the same points in respect of both applications. She argues that the applicant has failed to engage with the Respondents’ queries regarding the [NAME] over many years and did not engage with her offer of mediation made prior to the issue of the [NAME]. She refers the tribunal to the correspondence which is contained in the hearing bundle.
5. The Applicant in its response refers the tribunal to the relevant law. It submits that there were no relevant offers to settle this case, merely repeated repeated requests for clarification. It does not comment on the assertion that it failed to engage with the respondent’s pre-action offer
3 of mediation but points out that it did engage in attempts to resolve matters without issuing an [NAME], and points to a ‘without prejudice’ meeting between the Applicant’s managing agent and the Respondents which took place prior to the issue of proceedings but did not result in a resolution. The Law 6. The discretion to make orders under s20C and/or paragraph 5A is wide but the tribunal must have regard to what is just and equitable in the circumstances. The tribunal should have regard to the outcome of the proceedings and the conduct of the parties and should have regard in particular to any relevant offers to settle or attempts to facilitate settlement. It should also consider the potential impact on other leaseholders if a s20C order is made (see [NAME] v [COMPANY] [2013] UKUT529 LC). Reasons for the Decision.
6. We note that after the issue of proceedings both parties agreed to take advantage of the mediation service offered by the tribunal. There was no successful mediation for reasons which are not clear. However, what is clear is the Applicant has not refused to mediate or engage in pre-issue discussions.
7. We also note that the Applicant has been entirely successful in relation to those matters which remained in dispute at the hearing. There is some dispute as to what payments were made by the Respondents and whether or not some payments were rejected by the Applicant but it is clear that the Respondents permitted a significant level of arrears to accrue in relation to their ongoing liability to pay service charges for the years 2020 to 2023. It appears that this occurred because the Respondents were not satisfied with the Applicant’s responses to queries they had raised regarding the [NAME] and were unwilling to make payment in full toward their ongoing liabilities until they had received satisfactory answers to their queries. The Applicant was left with little choice other than to issue this [NAME]. In the circumstances there is no basis for the tribunal to make orders under either s20C LTA 1985 or Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to CLRA 2002.
Name: Judge O’Brien Date: 22 April 2024
Rights of appeal
4 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 [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charges Found Reasonable by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Reasonable Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Payable and Reasonable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Cost Claims in Service Charge Dispute
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Service Charges for Residential Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Ordered to Pay Service Charges for Major Works and Annual Maintenanc…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Liability for Insurance Costs Capped at 20%
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Estimated Service Charges Reasonable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Challenge to Service Charges Rejected by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal: No Jurisdiction Over Agreed Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rules: Claimant Agreed to Pay Administration Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charge Payable During Registration Gap - First-tier Tribunal Decisi…
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
- None of the cases provided show a successful outcome for the claimants.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The service charges were not challenged based on the reasonableness of the costs.
- The claimants failed to provide evidence that the service charges were disproportionately high.
- The claimants did not succeed in proving that the landlord's behavior was unreasonable.
- The claimants could not challenge service charges that had been previously agreed or admitted.
- The claimants were unsuccessful in disputing the reasonableness of the service charges under the lease agreement.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the respondents' applications for orders under s20C and paragraph 5A.
Who was involved?
The landlord and tenants were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the service charges were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount, based on the outcome of the proceedings and the conduct of the parties.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the service charges were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.
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 their service charges are reasonable and well-documented.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence and documents related to the service charges and their reasonableness mattered.
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 cases involving service charges.
