First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Reasonable and Payable

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LSC/2025/0694 Property : Flats 1, 2 & 3, 173a [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted] (2) [NAME], [ADDRESS]. (3) [NAME], [ADDRESS] (4) [NAME], [ADDRESS] : Mr [COUNSEL] Respondent : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL], counsel Type 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 Tagliavini Ms Jennifer Rodericks MRICS Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 26 August 2025 14 September 2025

DECISION

2

Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that all sums are reasonable and payable by the applicants as service charges for the period 2023/2024 and 2024/2025

(estimated). (2) The tribunal does not make 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. (3) The tribunal does not make an order under para. 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. _____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. The applicants seek 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 December 2023 to December 2024 under the

following heads and amounts: (i) [COMPANY] and Repairs:£1,132.80 (ii) Completion of BNO Inspection: £456.00 (iii) [NAME] of grit to footpaths in icy weather: £66.00 (iv) Installation of emergency lights: £438.86 (v) Fire, Health and Safety Risk assessment: £408.00 (vi) Remedial works to electric cupboard doors: £375.00 (vii) Management Fee: £1,204.80

Total: £4,077.46

AND December 2024 to December 2025 (estimated)

3 (i) [COMPANY] and Repairs: £1,200 (ii) Fire, Health and Safety Risk assessment: £450.00

Total: £1,650.00 The Property 2. The building which is the subject of this [NAME] comprise two houses converted into: Ground floor: 2 commercial units 1st Floor: Flat 1 (173A) and Flat 1 (175A) 2nd/3rd Floor: Flat 2 (173A) and Flat 3 (173A)

1. The applicants hold a long lease of their respective flats 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 2. The applicants were represented by Mr [RESPONDENT] (lessee). The respondent was represented by Mr [COUNSEL] of counsel. The tribunal was provided with a 183 page digital bundle on which both parties relied. The issues 3. 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 as set out above.

4. As well as disputing the reasonableness of the amount charge, the

applicants also asserted in their Scott Schedule that the following items

were not chargeable under the terms of the applicants’ lease. In an

earlier [NAME] by the applicants ref: LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0179

the tribunal had found the heads of service charge challenged in that

[NAME] were payable under the terms of the lease. In this

[NAME], many of the same heads of service charge are challenged

and the applicants appear to be raising legal arguments that have been

previously decided and not appealed. The applicants also referred the

4

tribunal to the decisions in LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0179 and

LON/00AY/LSC/2024/0034 concerning the same landlord. 5. However, this tribunal is not bound to follow a decision of another

first tier tribunal, although it will have regard to the previous tribunal’s

decisions.

6. In this [NAME], the applicants assert that the following heads of

service charge are not payable under the terms of the lease:

(i) BNO Inspection

(ii) [NAME] of grit

(iii) Works to electric cupboard doors

(iv) Emergency lights 7. The applicants also challenged whether the demands for payment had

been validly made. 8. Having heard evidence and submissions from the parties and considered all of the documents provided, the tribunal has made determinations on the various issues as follows. The tribunal’s decision 9. The tribunal determines that all sums demanded by the respondent for

the service charge years 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 (estimate) are

reasonable and payable by the applicants under the terms of their

respective leases. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 10. The applicants’ leases at clause xx set out the landlord’s obligations to

maintain the Development in which the subject building (173 and 175

forms part) and keep it in good and substantial order. provide the

following. Clause 6(5) states:

Without prejudice to the foregoing to do or cause to be done all

such works installations acts matters and things as in the

Landlord’s absolute discretion may be necessary or advisable for

the proper maintenance safety and administration of the

Development.

5 11. Although the applicants relied on two previous cases of the tribunal in

LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0179 and LON/00AY/LSC/2024/0034 this

tribunal is not bound by those decision in [NAME] its determinations in

this [NAME]. 12. The tribunal makes the following determinations: [COMPANY] and Repairs:£1,132.80 (£1,540.80 actuals) 13. The tribunal finds the applicants are required to contribute to the cost of these works under the terms of the leases. The tribunal finds the costs

incurred are reasonable and payable by the applicants. The applicants

accept these works are necessary. However, the tribunal finds the

landlord is not bound to accept the applicants’ ‘comparative’ quote of

£1,000 and does not render the landlord’s choice of contractor and scope of works to be unreasonable. Completion of BNO Inspection: £456.00 14. The tribunal finds these costs are reasonable and payable under the

terms of the leases. The tribunal accepts it was necessary and reasonable for the contractor to re-attend the subject property in order to complete the inspection. The applicants are being charged for the successful visit and not the earlier unsuccessful visit. [NAME] of grit to footpaths in icy weather: £66.00 15. The tribunal finds this service charge falls under the landlord’s wide

discretion afforded by clause 6(5) of the lease. As seen in photograph

provided, the area of grit applied covers the area immediately outside the applicants front doors (173A and 175A). The tribunal considers the sum

incurred is minimal and reasonable in view of the health and safety

aspect. Therefore, the tribunal finds this sum is payable by the

applicants.

In writing up the decision I changed my view on this item. Do you agree – I am quite happy to change.

I’d still be inclined to go with our original decision on the basis that the area gritted is outside of the landlord’s ownership. However, it is a very small cost and photographic proof was provided so I don’t feel strongly either way. Happy to go with your amendment therefore. Installation of emergency lights: £438.86

6 16. The tribunal finds this sum is reasonable and payable by the applicants.

The tribunal does not accept the applicants’ assertions that this work was unnecessary as the lease allows the landlord a wide discretion in deciding upon what safety measures to implement. Fire, Health and Safety Risk assessment: £408.00 17. The tribunal finds this sum is reasonable and payable under the terms of the leases. Remedial works to electric cupboard doors: £375.00 18. The tribunal finds this sum is reasonable and payable by the applicants

under the terms of the leases. The tribunal accepts the respondent’s

submissions that there is a continuing duty to ensure compliance with

safety legislation. Although, the applicants assert previous work was

done badly the tribunal finds that this does negate the obligation of the

landlord to ensure remedial works are done and the cupboard and

building made safe in the event of a fire. Management Fee: £1,204.80 19. The tribunal finds this sum is payable under the terms of the leases and

within the range of reasonableness for the services provided to the

applicants. [COMPANY] and Repairs: £1,200 20. The tribunal finds the applicants have accepted the need for the landlord to carry out these works. The tribunal finds the estimate sum is

reasonable and payable by the applicants. Fire, Health and Safety Risk assessment: £450.00 21. The tribunal finds this sum is reasonable and payable under the terms

of the leases. [NAME] under s.20 of the 1985 Act and para 5A of Sch.11 of the 2002 Act 22. In the [NAME] form the applicants applied for an order under section 20C of the 1985. Having regard to its decisions above, the tribunal does not consider that it is just and equitable in the circumstances for an order to be made under section 20C of the 1985 Act. Similarly, the tribunal declines to make an order under para 5A of Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act.

7

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 14 September 2025

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 (Lands Chamber), then 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] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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).