VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Unpayable Due to Non-compliance

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that the service charges claimed by the tenant are not payable because the landlord did not follow the court's directions properly. This means the tenant does not have to pay these charges.

⚖️ Legal holding

Service/administration charges are not payable if the claimant fails to comply with court directions.

Topics

tenancy disputesservice charges

Provisions

Housing Act 2004 s.231BLandlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.27ACommonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.11

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 2004 s.231B

This section allows a court to transfer certain questions to the First-tier Tribunal when those questions fall within the jurisdiction of the tribunal under specific housing acts. The court can then proceed with remaining issues while waiting for the tribunal's decision.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined that the service/administration charges claimed by the claimant are not payable due to non-compliance with directions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that the service/administration charges claimed by the claimant are not payable due to non-compliance with court directions. The case was transferred back to the County Court for further proceedings.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

In the FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Tribunal Case reference : LON/00AU/LSC/2024/0734 Claim Number : L4QZ0Z39 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] [NAME] : Transfer from County Court – Service and Administration Charges Tribunal : Judge N Carr Date of order : 25 April 2025

DETERMINATION AND TRANSFER BACK TO COUNTY COURT

Order 1. The service/administration charge sums claimed in claim L4QZ0Z39 are not payable.

2. Transfer claim number L4QZ0Z39 back to the County Court at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch, pursuant to rule 6(3)(n) of the Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013

Reasons

A. This claim was transferred to the Tribunal by District Judge Beecham on 13 November 2025, for determination of whether the service/administration charges claimed are reasonable/payable.

B. The claim form identifies that [NAME] was to provide fully pleaded Particulars of Claim within 14 days of its being provided to

2 the County Court and [NAME]. No such appear on the Court file, nor have been received by the [NAME].

C. By directions dated 3 December 2024, Deputy Regional Judge Martyński required [NAME] as follows:

D. Judge Martyński also set the matter down for hearing on 4 April 2025. By covering letter sending the directions to [NAME], [NAME] was therefore required to pay a hearing fee of £220 within 14 days, and warned that a failure to do so might result in the [NAME] being deemed withdrawn pursuant to rule 11(3) Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 (‘the Rules’).

E. On 4 December 2024, the Tribunal received an automatic response from [NAME]’s email address, acknowledging receipt of the Tribunal’s email.

Initial disclosure of information and clarification of claim

3. The Applicant must by 30 December 2024 deliver (by email) to the Respondent the following documents: - A breakdown of the claim - Service Charge accounts for the periods in question - Copies of all relevant demands - The Respondent’s running Service Charge account. … The Applicant’s Reply

6. The Applicant must by 21 February 2025 deliver (by email) to the Respondent and to the tribunal the form completed by the Applicant with its replies to the issues raised. 7. If the Applicant wishes to rely on any documents not already seen by the Respondent, copies of any such documents must be delivered (by email) to the Respondent at the same time. Witness statements

8. If any party wishes to rely upon a witness, a summary of that witnesses’ evidence must be set out in a statement (which must contain paragraph numbers for each paragraph) and must deliver any such witness statements (by email) to the other party by no later than 14 March 2025.

3 F. By [NAME] dated 20 March 2025, the [NAME] notified the Tribunal that [NAME] had failed to comply with the directions, and sought a strike out.

G. By order dated 21 March 2025, Judge Martyński directed as follows:

H. [NAME] has not responded.

I. By further [NAME] to strike out dated 7 April 2025, the [NAME] seeks striking out of [NAME]’s claim on grounds of [NAME]’s failure to comply.

J. Pending the agreement of a new practice direction for deployment, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider matters that are to be determined by the County Court. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction on transfer is limited as set out in section 231B of the Housing Act 2004.

K. The Tribunal is not able to strike out the claim, as it is only able to determine the payability of service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 or administration charges under schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Matters of interest and costs, pleaded on the claim, are for the County Court alone - even if as a consequence of the Tribunal’s payability decision no interest or costs would be awarded.

L. Pursuant to rule 8(2) of the Rules, the Tribunal may take any action it considers just where a party has failed to comply with a direction.

M. I consider that it is just, in all the circumstances, to summarily determine that the sums for service/administration charges claimed by [NAME] are not payable, on the basis that [NAME] is unwilling or unable to establish its claim on the balance of probabilities.

N. This matter will now be returned to the County Court at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch for it to take whatever action it considers appropriate on the remaining elements of the claim.

Name: Judge N Carr

Date: 25 April 2025 3. The Applicant must, by no later than 4 April 2025;

(a) Comply with direction 3 of the directions dated 3 December 2024, and; (b) Provide an explanation for its failure to comply with directions to date

4. The case will be referred back to a Judge after 4 April 2025 and a decision will be made as to the future conduct of the case.

4 ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) 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 regional office which has been dealing with the case.

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office 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. Any appeal in respect of the Housing Act 1988 should be on a point of law.

If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 service/administration charges were deemed not payable because the claimant failed to establish its claim.
  • The Tribunal decided it was just to summarily determine the charges were not payable due to the claimant's non-compliance.
  • The claimant failed to provide fully pleaded Particulars of Claim within the required timeframe.
  • The claimant failed to comply with directions to provide a breakdown of the claim and service charge accounts.
  • The claimant failed to provide an explanation for its non-compliance with the Tribunal's directions.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The Tribunal could not strike out the claim because its jurisdiction is limited to determining the payability of service or administration charges.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision stated that the service/administration charges claimed by the tenant are not payable.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the charges are not payable because the landlord failed to comply with the court's directions.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 2004, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The fact that the landlord did not comply with the court's directions was the most important argument.

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

The decision was in favour of the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that the landlord complies with all court directions to avoid having their charges declared unpayable.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence of the landlord's failure to comply with the court's directions was crucial.

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 seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal disputes.

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.