VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Rejects Tenant's Costs Claim and s 20C Application

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled against the tenant's request for costs and their application under s 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, stating that the tenant's behavior was unreasonable and evasive.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant cannot avoid their obligations under a lease through unreasonable conduct.

Topics

costsLandlord and Tenant Act 1985

Provisions

Tribunal Rules rule 13Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s 20C

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal dismissed both parties' claims for costs and the tenant's application under s 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) dismissed the tenant's application for costs and their application under s 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, finding their conduct unreasonable and evasive.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Case Reference : LON/00BK/LSC/2022/0154

Property :

2 [APPELLANT], London [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted] Costs and s20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Members :

Judge Shepherd

Date of Decision :

2st March 2023

_______________________________________________

DECISION _______________________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

1. Both parties have applied for their costs. The Applicants have applied under Rule 13 of the Tribunal Rules alleging that the Respondent behaved unreasonably by being evasive in refusing to respond to an email or in refusing to agree quantum following clarification by the Tribunal. Whilst the Respondent’s conduct was obstructive I bear in mind that he was a litigant in person (see [ADDRESS] paras 31-34) who may not have behaved this way with proper legal advice. His conduct was not unreasonable in the sense described in [ADDRESS]. The Applicants application for costs is dismissed.

2. The Respondent also applied for costs. This application is dismissed. Self- evidently he lost the case and the conduct of the Applicants is not open to challenge.

3. The Respondent’s application under s 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is also dismissed. He has sought every means possible to avoid meeting his obligations under the lease. The defence was misguided.

Judge Shepherd 2nd March 2023

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions

1. A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.

3. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers 5. Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.

📊 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 successfully challenges the reasonableness of service charges under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  • The property meets the required criteria for the property owner to acquire the Right to Manage under the Commonwealth and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
  • Necessary and urgent works allow a landlord to be dispensed from consulting tenants, provided there is no relevant prejudice to leaseholders.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence or attend the hearing for a rent repayment order.
  • The tenant failed to receive a valid notice of rent increase in the prescribed form.
  • The tenant did not comply with lease restrictions on short-term lets and alterations.

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 both parties' applications for costs and the respondent's application under s 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the entitlement to costs and relief under s 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to dismiss the applications because the respondent behaved unreasonably and failed to meet their obligations under the lease.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20C was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the respondent's evasive behavior and failure to meet their obligations under the lease.

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 they comply with their obligations under the lease to avoid having their application dismissed.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.

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.