First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Payability
📌 In brief
The tribunal decided on the fairness of service charges for a tenant's flat. They ruled that some charges were fair and must be paid, while others were considered too high and were reduced or dismissed.
⚖️ Legal holding
Service charges are reasonable and payable unless proven unreasonable or excessive.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal ruled on the payability and reasonableness of service charges under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal determined that certain service charges were reasonable and payable, while others were deemed unreasonable and uncollectible. The decision was based on the evidence presented regarding the condition of the property and the management practices of the landlord.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AK/LSC/2025/0644 Property : 37B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant : [redacted] : I/P Respondent : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL], counsel Type of application : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Judge Tagliavini Mr S Johnson MRICS Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 28 August 2025 14 September 2025
DECISION
2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that the cost of the guttering works are not
reasonable and not payable by the applicant. (2) the management fee for 2023 and 2023 is reduced to £140 per annum. (2) The tribunal determines that all other service charges incurred in the
years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 (estimated) are reasonable and
payable by the applicant. (3) The tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the Landlord
and Tenant Act 1985, so that none of the landlord’s costs of the tribunal
proceedings may be passed to the lessees through any service charge. (4) The tribunal makes an order under para. 5A of Schedule 11 of the
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. _____________________________________________________ The application 1. The applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord
and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act and Schedule 11 to the Commonhold
and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) as to the amount of
service charges and where applicable) administration charges payable
by the applicants in respect of the payability and reasonableness of the
service charge year ending 31st December 2023; 2024 and 2025
(estimated) in the sum of £3,040. The Property 2. The subject property at [ADDRESS], Enfield EN2
8EB(‘the flat’) comprises a 1 bed ground floor flat in a converted
Edwardian house consisting of four flats.
3. The applicant holds a long lease of their respective flat which requires
the landlord to provide services and the tenant to contribute towards
their costs by way of a variable service charge. The specific provisions of
the lease and will be referred to below, where appropriate. The hearing 4. The applicant represented herself and the respondent was represented
by Mr [COUNSEL] of counsel. The tribunal also heard evidence from the
applicant and from Mr [APPELLANT] of [NAME]
3
for the respondent. The tribunal was also provided with a 215 page digital
bundle on which both parties relied.
The issues 5. At the start of the hearing the parties identified the relevant issues for
determination as follows: (i) The payability and/or reasonableness of service charges for 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 including the cost of external works. The heads of service charge challenged were: 2023: Health & Safety; repairs and maintenance; external repairs; management fee; accountancy fees. 2024: Health & Safety; repairs and maintenance; management fee; cleaning; external repairs; and accountancy fees. 2025: No details provided.
6. The applicant asserted that since moving into the flat, she experienced
numerous issues stemming from the freeholder’s inaction, including a
lack of maintenance and general neglect of the Property which has
continued to date. In particular, the applicant complained of damp and
mould exacerbated by a leaking gutter in or about the end of 2023. [NAME] carried out a survey in 2024 and again in January 2025 which found
the presence of damp and mould in the flat. 7. The applicant also complained about the lack of transparency on the part
of the respondent and its managing agents in providing access to
documents and information including insurance documents and annual
reports. 8. The applicant also asserted that there had been a lack of maintenance of
the property which had led to overflowing gutters, an unsafe driveway
and poorly maintained living conditions. 9. Mr [NAME] told the tribunal that budget statement covering the period
2022 to 2025 were provided to the applicant. Mr [APPELLANT] also told the
tribunal that the cost of the works in relation to the damp, mould and
external repairs will not be passed onto the applicant and will be met by
the freeholder. Works to remedy the damp issue in the flat have now
been carried out by the installation of an (effective) damp roof course. 10. Mr [NAME] also told the tribunal that external redecoration works had
been carried out in May 2025.
4
The tribunal’s reasons 11. The tribunal finds the cost associated with the overflowing and leaking
guttering work should not be passed onto the applicant (pro rata) in view
of the limited maintenance that has been carried out on this building.
The tribunal finds the respondent was made aware of the blocked
guttering by the applicant’s email dated 16 June 2022. Although an
inspection took place in July 2022, the gutters remained blocked until
2024/2025. 12. The tribunal limits the management fee to £140 per annum for 2023
and 2024 due to the evident lack of management of the building. 13. Although the applicant challenged the whole of the service charges for
2023; 2024 and 2025 the tribunal found the application lacked detail as
to the reasons for the dispute. Further, the tribunal found the applicant
had included documents relating to a much earlier period e.g. 2014
which were of limited assistance to the tribunal in respect of the current
application. 14. The tribunal also found the respondent’s evidence was somewhat
incomplete. However, the tribunal was satisfied on the balance of
probabilities by the respondent’s evidence, invoices and accounts that all
the fees incurred for the years 2023; 2024 and 2025 (estimate) are
reasonable and payable with the exception of the guttering and the
reduced management fee. 15. As the respondent has agreed to pay the applicant’s share of the external
works the tribunal does need to consider the reasonableness of those
works or their cost. Section 20C & para 5A, Sch 11 16. In the applicant’s statement of case Dr [APPELLANT] stated she wished to
make an application for an order under s20C of the Landlord and Tenant
Act 1985, so that none of the respondent’s costs can be added to the
service charges. In light of the tribunal’s findings and the respondent’s
concessions, the tribunal finds it reasonable and appropriate to make the
order sought. Similarly, the tribunal makes an order under para. 5A of
Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
Name: Judge Tagliavini
Date: 14 September 2025
5
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. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]), then a written application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The application should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. 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. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal rules on service charges for London flats
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Service Charge Reasonableness
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant ordered to Pay Service Charges After Dispute with Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal rules on service charges and managing agent fees
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Reasonableness of Service Charges Determined by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal rules on service charges under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Reasonable and Payable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Reasonable and Payable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Decides on Reasonableness of Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Service Charge Dispute Over Major Works Notification
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Service Charges for Accurate Management Fees
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Leaseholder wins challenge over unreasonable service charges
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
- Service charges are reasonable and payable if they are not unreasonably high.
- Service charges are reasonable and payable only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred and provide services of a reasonable standard.
- Service charges are reasonable if they are incurred reasonably and are of a reasonable standard.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Service charges for fire, health and safety testing, risk assessments, and management fees are reasonable and payable under the terms of the leases.
- Service charges are reasonable if they are incurred for services of a reasonable standard and are not excessive.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided on the payability and reasonableness of service charges for a tenant's flat.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the evidence showing the condition of the property and the management practices of the landlord.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence showing the condition of the property and the management practices of the landlord.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for and partly against the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should review the service charges carefully and gather evidence to support their case.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing the condition of the property and the management practices of the landlord mattered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving service charges.
