VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Unpayable

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that certain service charges are not payable by tenants and barred the landlord from passing on costs through service charges.

⚖️ Legal holding

Tenants are not required to pay certain service charges deemed unreasonable and uncollectible by the tribunal.

Topics

tenancy disputesservice charges

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20CCommonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.115A

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal ruled that certain service charges are not payable by tenants and barred the landlord from passing on costs through service charges.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that certain service charges identified in the County Court claim are not payable by tenants and barred the landlord from passing on costs through service charges.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/OOAH/LSC/2023/0052 Property : Flat D [ADDRESS] CRO 2US Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] LLP Respondents : [redacted] :

None

Type of Application :

Transferred Proceedings from County Court in relation to relation to reasonableness and payability of service charge

Tribunal Members :

Judge H [NAME] of paper determination : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing : 21 August 2023 Date of Decision : 21 August 2023

DECISION

2 Description of hearing

This has been a remote hearing on the papers, on referral from the County Court. A face-to-face hearing was not held because the Applicant served a request to the tribunal for consent to withdraw an application on 18 August 2023 as a result of which the hearing due to occur on 21 August 2023 was vacated. The decisions made are set out below under the heading “Decisions of the tribunal”. Decisions of the tribunal

(1) The tribunal consents to the Applicant’s request to withdraw its application for determination of the service charge for the years 2019 and 2020. (2) The tribunal determines at the request of the Applicant that none of the service charges identified in the County Court claim numbered GOQZ5C2R the subject of the Order of Deputy District Judge Turner dated 12 January 2023 and transferred to this tribunal are payable by the Respondents. (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 Respondents as lessees through any service charge. (4) The tribunal makes an order under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 in favour of the Respondents that none of the costs incurred by the Applicant in connection with these proceedings can be charged direct to the Respondents as an administration charge under the Respondents’ lease of the Property. (5) The claim is now transferred back to the County Court for final disposal. Reasons 1. The case has transferred from the County Court to seek a determination pursuant to section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) as to the reasonableness and payability of service charges levied by the Applicant on the Respondent for the service charge years 2019 to 2021.

2. The Respondents are the leaseholders of the Property pursuant to a lease (“the Lease”) dated 28 October 1983 and made between [APPELLANT] (1) and [NAME]. [APPELLANT] (2). The Applicant is the Respondents’ current landlord.

3. On 18 August 2023 the Applicant filed an application for permission to withdraw its application for determination of the service charge for the years 2019 and 2020. In its confirming letter, it confirmed that it did not require determination of the service charge, will waive the service charge that has been referred to be determined by the tribunal for the service

3 charge years 2019 – 2020 and will not seek this against the Respondents and will not seek its costs in respect of the proceedings against the tenant 4. As a result, the tribunal vacated the hearing scheduled to occur on 21 August 2023. As these are proceedings in the county court, it cannot of itself bring them to an end. Instead, it makes the decisions referred to above to give effect to the Applicant’s application and confirmations and now transfers the case back to the county court for final disposal. 5.

Name: Judge H Lumby Date: 21 August 2023

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

A. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office dealing with the case.

B. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

C. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

D. 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.

📊 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 tenant is entitled to a statutory lease extension if the landlord cannot be found.
  • A tenant can receive a rent repayment order if the landlord breaches the law.
  • Qualifying tenants have the right to purchase the freehold interest under specific conditions.
  • Tenants are entitled to a fair rent that considers market conditions and property characteristics.
  • The tribunal has the authority to approve terms of a transfer deed after a vesting order.
  • Tenants are not required to pay excessive legal fees for lease extensions.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A tenant's request for a new lease based on property value was refused due to lack of similar assured tenancies in the locality.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision ruled that certain service charges are not payable by tenants and barred the landlord from passing on costs through service charges.

Who was involved?

The case involved a landlord and tenants in dispute over service charges.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the service charges were unreasonable and uncollectible, thus not payable by tenants.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20C and Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.115A were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the reasonableness and payability of the service charges.

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

The decision was for the tenants who challenged the service charges.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should challenge unreasonable service charges to avoid paying them.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents related to the reasonableness and payability of the service charges mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

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.