VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Demands

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled on service charge demands made by a landlord to a tenant. The tribunal found the demands valid and due and payable, supporting the landlord's claims.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to service charge demands under the lease agreement.

Topics

service chargeslease agreements

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s.27A

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal ruled on service charges under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ruled on service charge demands under a lease agreement, finding the demands valid and due and payable.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CHI/00MS/LSC/2022/0062 G39YJ586 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : W.[APPELLANT]

Respondent: [redacted]

[NAME] Mrs [COUNSEL] [NAME] :

Type of [NAME] :

Transferred Proceedings from County Court in relation to service charges Tribunal member(s) : Judge D Whitney Venue :

Date of decision : 26th September 2022

DECISION

2

Background 1. The Applicant seeks, and following a transfer from the County Court the Tribunal is required to make, a determination of service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act. These are matters within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2. The original proceedings were issued in the County Court under Claim No. G39YJ586 and were transferred to the Tribunal by District Judge Underhill by order dated 25 April 2022.

3. The Applicant has also claimed ground rent, interest and court fees. These are matters within the jurisdiction of the Court.

4. Directions were issued on 15th August 2022 requiring both parties to file and serve any evidence relied upon. The Applicant did so but nothing was received from the Respondent save an email confirming they intended to attend.

DECISION Hearing

5. The hearing was attended by Ms [NAME] and Ms [NAME] from the Applicants [NAME]. A letter of authority from the Applicant was provided to the Tribunal.

6. The Respondents did not attend but the evening before the hearing emailed as follows:

“Dear Sirs

With a great regret we wish to inform you, that due to medical condition, I , representative of the Respondent, Mrs [COUNSEL], am unable to attend tomorrow’s (Monday, 26th of September) hearing.

I sincerely apologise for the short notice and the potential delay in proceedings that this will cause but especially recently, my long term physical condition has put a lot of pressure on my mental well-being. Due to this, I won’t be able to face the hearing with a healthy mind.

If my Medical Certificate is needed, I’ll provide a copy on request.

We would like to request to postpone the hearing if possible. I’ll then provide dates of my medical appointments to be taken into consideration.

Once more our sincere apology.

3 Yours sincerely

Mr & Mrs [APPELLANT]”

7. The Applicant’s representatives wished to proceed.

8. I determined that the hearing should proceed. I had requested my clerk to email the Respondent and request a copy of their medical certificate but this was not supplied. I had no medical evidence in support of any adjournment. Also no explanation was given as to why Mr [NAME] could not attend on his own. Further I took account of the Respondents failure to comply with the directions to file any evidence upon which they replied. Taking account of all matters I determined it was in the interests of justice to proceed and determine the matter not least due to the fact the proceedings had been first issued over two years ago.

9. Ms [NAME] took me through the documents filed. These included service charge demands and an example Summary of Rights and Obligations. Demands for all the sums claimed were within the bundle. Ms [NAME] relied upon the lease for the Property being a document dated 15th November 1961 made between [COMPANY] and [NAME]. This provided that the leaseholder would pay 1/6th of service charge costs and [NAME] premiums. The lease allowed recovery of [NAME] fees.

10. Ms [NAME] explained that it is the freeholder who organises the [NAME]. In respect of [NAME] costs there is a contract with the client although this had not been provided. The costs were £30 plus vat per unit but this had been increased from 2018 to £75 plus vat per unit.

11. Ms [NAME] accepted little actual work had been undertaken in recent years but she contended this was due to issues with the leaseholders at the Property. She in particular referred to issues with the Respondent which had caused the local authority to consider taking planning enforcement action. The papers included correspondence undertaken by the [NAME].

Findings and reasons

12. I am satisfied that the lease allows the recovery of the items claimed. A copy of the lease was within the papers. I am also satisfied that the demands themselves are valid and so the amounts claimed being [NAME]’ fees and [NAME] costs are in principle due and owing.

13. The Defence filed by the Respondent (being the only document they had filed) did not appear to challenge their obligation to pay under

4 the lease and the demands but questioned the reasonableness of the costs.

14. Turning to the [NAME] I am told that the Property consists of 6 flats. The Respondents case as to a challenge is not clear but I am satisfied that the sum claimed is reasonable.

15. In respect of the [NAME] fees the Defendant suggests that they are not properly [NAME] and the Property is falling into disrepair. Ms [NAME] explained the steps the agent has been undertaking in an attempt to have work undertaken. Plainly there are difficulties with the Property. I note however the level of fee claimed is exceptionally modest. Looking in the round at matters and taking account of the explanation given by Ms [NAME] I am satisfied that the cost is reasonable.

16. I find the [NAME] premiums claimed from September 2017 to December 2020 totalling £1,116.34 are due and payable. I also find the [NAME] fees for the period 2017 to 2021 inclusive totalling £342 are due and payable.

Rights of appeal

Appeals in respect of decisions made by the Tribunal 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] must be made as an attachment to an email addressed to [EMAIL] . 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).

5 Appeals in respect of decisions made by the Tribunal Judge in his capacity as a Judge of the County Court An [NAME] for permission to appeal may be made to an appeal judge in the County Court since No [NAME] was made to the Judge at the hearing. Please note: you must in any event lodge your appeal notice within 21 days of the date of the decision against which you wish to appeal. Further information can be found at the County Court offices (not the tribunal offices) or on-line. Appeals in respect of decisions made by the Tribunal Judge in his capacity as a Judge of the County Court and in respect the decisions made by the FTT You must follow both routes of appeal indicated above raising the FTT issues with the Tribunal Judge and County Court issues by proceeding directly to the County Court.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 10 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 service charges are deemed reasonable under the lease agreement.
  • The service charges are calculated according to the lease agreement.
  • The service charges are for services reasonably incurred and of a reasonable standard.
  • The tenant is entitled to service charges under the terms of the lease agreement if the charges are reasonable and justified.
  • The tenant is entitled to have service charges determined as reasonable and relevant under the lease agreement.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The service charges are not necessarily tied to the specific terms outlined in the lease agreement.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal ruled that the service charge demands were valid and due and payable.

Who was involved?

The landlord made service charge demands to the tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to proceed with the hearing and determined the service charge demands were valid based on the lease agreement.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Section 27A was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the validity of the service charge demands under the lease agreement.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their lease agreement supports their service charge demands.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The lease agreement and service charge demands were critical pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, appeals can be made 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 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.