First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges for Window Frames Unrecoverable
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that leaseholders are not required to pay service charges for window frame replacements in their flats. This decision supports the claimant's challenge against the landlord's request for payment.
⚖️ Legal holding
Leaseholders are responsible for the repair and replacement of window frames in their flats, while the landlord retains responsibility for the external surfaces.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully challenged the payability of service charges for window frame replacements.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant challenged the payability of service charges for window frame replacements in their flat. The First-tier Tribunal found that the landlord had no right to recover costs for works to demised parts of the building, ruling in favour of the claimant.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/LSC/2022/0386 Property :
[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondents : [redacted] : Application made pursuant to s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal : Judge Shepherd John Naylor MRICS FIRPM Date of Decision : 18th July 2023
Decision
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
1. In this case the Applicants, [APPELLANT] and [APPELLANT] (“The Applicants”) are challenging the payability of service charges being sought by the Respondents, 91-93 [COMPANY] (“The Respondents”).
2
2. The Applicants are the leaseholders of [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“The premises”). The premises are located in a building containing several flats. The freeholders of the building are the Respondents.
3. The Respondents invoiced the Applicants on 11th October 2021 for their share of the cost ( £1577.12) of replacing window frames and glass of the top floor flats in the building. The premises is not located on the top floor. The Applicants challenge the payability of these sums on the basis that the Third Schedule of their lease and the other leases in the building demise the windows and frames to the leaseholders and that the Respondents have no right to recover the cost of works to demised parts of the building. The Respondents are debarred from defending the Application because they failed to comply with directions.
4. The relevant parts of the lease which are common throughout the building are the following:
The land retained by the Respondents is detailed in the Second Schedule and includes all those main structural parts of the building forming part of the building including the roofs foundations the external and load bearing walls and the joists upon which the floors are laid and external parts of the building thereof( but not the glass in the windows nor the plaster on the ceilings and walls or the screed on the floors of the flats)…
5. The land demised to the [NAME] is described in the Third Schedule as the following:
ALL THAT …. Flat… which shall be deemed to include the plaster on the ceiling and walls and screed on the floors the windows and window frames thereof ( but not the external surfaces of such window frames)….
6. Under the seventh schedule the service charges permitted include : The cost of complying with the landlord’s obligations set out in the fifth schedule…
7. The landlord’s obligations under the fifth schedule include an obligation:
3
To inspect maintain repair redecorate and when necessary rebuild or renew:- (a) The exterior of the building and all those parts of the retained premises secondly described in the Second Schedule; (b) As appropriate all those parts of the retained premises first described in the Second Schedule ( see para above).
Determination
8. It is clear that the responsibility for repair and replacement of window frames in individual flats lies with the [NAME]. The landlord retains the responsibility to repair and maintain the external surfaces of the window frames. The purpose of this is to allow the landlord to retain control over the external decoration of the window frames. The replacement of the frames and glass goes beyond this responsibility.
9. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the sums sought by the Respondents for the replacement of the window frames in the flats on the third floor of the building are not recoverable from the Applicants. The Applicants will need to be refunded with the sums they have paid over in this regard.
Judge Shepherd 18th July 2023
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects Unreasonable Service Charge Demand of £1989
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Can Withhold Payment of Unexplained Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reduces Unreasonable Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Granted Dispensation for Emergency Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Unconditional Dispensation Granted for Urgent Building Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Repairs to Leaking Balcony
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Management Fees and Declares Some Service Charges Unpayabl…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Lighting Works Without Consultatio…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Fire Safety Works Costs Recoverable as Service Ch…
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 leaseholders are responsible for repairing and replacing window frames in their individual flats.
- The landlord's responsibility is limited to repairing and maintaining the external surfaces of the window frames.
- The landlord's obligation to maintain external surfaces is to control external decoration, not to replace entire frames and glass.
- The sums sought by the landlord for replacing window frames are not recoverable from the leaseholders.
- The landlord was prevented from defending the application because they did not follow the tribunal's instructions.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ruled that the landlord cannot charge the leaseholders for the cost of replacing window frames in the top-floor flats.
Who was involved?
The case involved leaseholders challenging the payability of service charges imposed by the landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the leaseholders are responsible for the repair and replacement of window frames in their flats, while the landlord is responsible for the external surfaces.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 27A, was applied in this case.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the leaseholders are responsible for the internal parts of the windows, while the landlord is responsible for the external surfaces.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should review their lease agreement to determine who is responsible for repairs and replacements of property components.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The lease agreement and the invoices for the service charges were crucial pieces of evidence.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving lease agreements and service charges.
