First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Variable and Reasonable

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LSL/2025/0005 Property : 37a [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted] :

I/P

Respondent : [redacted] : Ms [COUNSEL] [NAME] & Mr [COUNSEL] of [NAME] : S.27A – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Judge Tagliavini Mr Andrew Thomas Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 10 September 2025 3 October 2025

DECISION

2 (1) The tribunal finds the service charges payable by the applicants are

variable. (2) The tribunal finds the costs incurred by the respondent in respect of

service chargers for the period 2019 to 2025 are reasonable and

payable by the applicants. (3) The tribunal declines to make an Order requiring the respondent to

reimburse the [NAME]/hearing fees to the applicant. (4) The tribunal declines to make an order under s.20C of the Landlord and

Tenant Act 2985. (5) The tribunal declines to make and order under para 5A of Schedule 11 of

the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. _________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. This is an [NAME] made pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and

Tenant Act asserting that service charges demanded from the applicants

in the period 2019 to 2025 are fixed at £2.77 and are not variable service

charges or payable in the amounts demanded by the respondent. The background 2. The applicants hold an assured tenancy agreement dated 10 July 2019.

The relevant clauses of the lease will be referred to where necessary in

this decision. The property 3. The subject property comprises a two bedroom fat on the ground and

basement floors of a building converted into 2 flats. The issues 4. The substantive issue between the parties is whether the service charges

are variable or fixed in the sum of £2.77 per week as per Schedule 1 of

the lease. The hearing 5. At the hearing of the [NAME], the tribunal was provided with a digital

bundle comprising 889 pages. Although there was some dispute between

3

the parties in respect of the hearing bundle, the 889 pages included all

documents on which both parties wished to rely. Where it was necessary,

the tribunal was referred to different copies of the same lease due to

copying difficulties. 6. In addition, the tribunal heard evidence and submissions from

both parties as well as being provided with a skeleton argument by the

respondent, In [NAME] its decision, the tribunal took all of the

documentary and oral evidence into account. The tribunal’s decisions 7. The tribunal determines that:

(i) The service charges payable by the applicants are variable and not

fixed.

(ii) The tribunal finds the service charges demanded by the

respondent from the applicants in the period 2029 to 2025 are

reasonable and payable. The tribunal’s reasons 8. The tribunal finds the applicants acknowledged their obligation to pay

service charges when they signed the lease for the subject property and

have made payments more or less covering the sums demanded, since

that date. 9. The tribunal finds that although there was an absence of a detailed

Schedule 1 of the services that are recoverable through the services, this

does not preclude the respondents from seeking payment for services

provided to the applicant and the applicants being required to pay for

them; [NAME] v [NAME] 2016 UKUT 279

(LC) and [NAME] v [NAME] & Ors 2025 UKUT 279 (LC) 10. The tribunal finds the terms of the lease expressly make reference to

service charges and state at para 3.1 ‘We will normally review service

charges not more than twice per year.’ Para 3.2 of the same document

confirms that the service charge is variable in similarly express terms by

reference to increasing and decreasing the service charge by giving

notice. Similarly reference to ‘deficit’ and surplus’ in the definitions

section of the lease make it clear the service charges are intended to be

variable and that the applicants would have known that these were the

terms of the agreement.

4 11. The tribunal, therefore, rejects the applicants’ submission that the

absence of a detailed Schedule of Services renders the services fixed or

not payable. 12. The tribunal also considered the reasonableness of the service charges

demanded during the period in issue. In this it was assisted by the

provision of a Scott Schedule that had been completed by both parties.

Most of the applicants challenges to the individual heads of service

charge centred on their assertion that:

There was no Schedule 1 - Service Charge or breakdown of

service charges provided as part of Tenancy Agreement

(Assured non shorthold tenancy agreement) and sign-up, which

we understand to be a legal requirement to make the service

charge variable. 13. Although there was a dispute of fact between the parties as to whether

any detailed Schedule 1 was provided at the time the tenancy was entered

into as it was said in the agreement that ‘a detailed schedule of initial

costs and estimated costs are provided with this tenancy agreement.’

However, the copy of the Schedule 1 provided by the applicants omits

any detail of these costs. However, the tribunal finds in light of the

above decision at paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 above this is irrelevant to the

decision that the service charges are variable and payable by the

applicants. 14. The applicants sought to argue in the alternative that certain costs

incurred by the respondent were not now supported by invoices; the

efforts made to source the lowest quotes; the attendance appointments

of works and signed attendance sheet, appointment confirmations and

reports on completed works. 15. The tribunal rejects these submissions and considers that were there was

no requirement on the part of the respondent to have made or kept such

voluminous records for relatively low cost items from 2019 onwards.

Had it done so, the tribunal considers it likely the costs would have

increased and been passed onto the applicants. 16. The applicants challenged the communal electricity costs as being

unreasonable. The tribunal find the majority of this charge is made up

by way of a standing charge with minimal costs in pence being added to

this. Therefore, the tribunal finds these charges are reasonable and

payable by the applicants. 17. The charge for gas was challenged but the tribunal accepts there is no gas

supply to the subject property and therefore no charge is made.

5 18. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that there had been

bulk refuse disposal and graffiti removal. The tribunal does not accept

the applicant’s bald assertion there had been none, as they would not

have been in a position have known what was done and when. 19. The tribunal accepts there is no lift in the subject building and finds the

respondent has not sought to recover costs in respect of this item. 20. The tribunal finds no relevant issues arose in respect of the s.20

consultation requirements in respect of the heads of service charges

challenged by the applicants. Reimbursement of hearing fee; s.20c and para 5A of Sch. 11 21. The applicants submitted the respondent should reimburse the

[NAME]/hearing costs. In view of the decision reached by the

tribunal this [NAME] is refused. 22. The applicant also made an oral [NAME] under s.20C of the Landlord

and Tenant Act 1985 so that none of the respondent’s costs can be added

to the service charges. The tribunal refuses this [NAME] as the

applicants have not been successful on any of the issues they raised.

Similarly, the tribunal declines to make an order under para 5A of Sch 11

of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

20. The applicants 20. The tribunal finds the cost of the pest control to be on the high side but

nevertheless within the range of reasonableness. Further, the applicants

offered no alternative quote for this service as a comparison. 21. The tribunal finds the costs of scheduled door maintenance to be

reasonable. Although the applicants asserted that an appointment

would have been required to have been made with them for this service

to be provided, the tribunal finds the applicants lack credibility in their

evidence and their recollections of events that occurred many months

and years previously. 22. The tribunal finds the administration charges/management fees are

reasonable And payable by the applicants. The tribunal accepts the

respondent’s submission that these represent the true cost of providing

6

management to building comprising of only 2 flats and cannot be shared

between a larger number of units. Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 3 October 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 Regional Office 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 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. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).