VadeLab
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenant Must Pay Service Charges

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a tenant must pay service charges for the years ending September 2022-2025, along with interest and legal fees. The decision was based on the lease agreement and approved accounts showing the charges were reasonable.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is liable for service charges if they are reasonable and in accordance with the lease.

Topics

Service ChargesLeasehold Valuation Tribunals

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.27A

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined that the service charges for the years ending September 2022-2025 are payable by the Respondent.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined that the service charges for the years ending September 2022-2025 are payable by the Respondent, along with interest and legal fees. The Tribunal relied on the lease agreement and approved accounts to determine the reasonableness of the charges.

📚 Full judgment Official document

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/21UF/LSC/2025/0661 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative :

[COUNSEL], [RESPONDENT]

Respondent : [redacted] : None Type of Application :

Application for a determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges Section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Tribunal Member : [NAME] of Application : 10th April 2025 Date of Decision : 8th September 2025

DECISION

HAV/21UF/LSC/2025/0661/IC

2 Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal determines that the service charges for the years ending September 2022-2025 are payable by the Respondent in the sum of £2,159.52, Legal Fees of £5,880.00 and interest of £114.21 are also payable. Background 1. On 10th April 2025 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a determination of liability and reasonableness of service charges for the years 2022-2025.

2. In addition, at that stage, the Applicant sought to recover legal costs of £3,890.00 and interest of £76.14.

3. The Tribunal issued directions on 9th June 2025 stating that the Tribunal considered this application is suitable to be decided on the papers alone without an oral hearing. Both parties were given dates to submit their respective cases.

4. Neither party requested an oral hearing.

5. The Applicant is the Freeholder of the building with responsibility for its upkeep and maintenance, the cost of which is born by the various lessees. Submissions 6. The Applicant provided an electronic bundle of 141 pages. Reference to documents in the bundle are enclosed by square brackets thus [p…].

7. The Applicant submitted a witness statement of [APPELLANT] [NAME] [p27-117] who owns Flat 5 and is a joint director of the Applicant. Her statement clearly sets out the Applicant’s case to the effect that the property is one of 6 flats within the building, that the Respondent is the proprietor of Flat 3 and is liable for a share of the service charges together with interest on any arrears and legal costs incurred for the collection of the service charges.

8. The Applicant provided a copy of the Land Registry Title for the property [p121] which shows the Respondent to be joint owner with [RESPONDENT] [NAME] and a copy Death Certificate or [NAME] dates 22nd January 2019.

9. The electronic bundle includes unaudited accountant’s statements of account for 31st December 2023 and 2024 [122-135] and formal demands for service charge for the periods 1st May 2023 to 24th March 2025 [69-72].

10. The Applicant states that the property has been occupied by the Respondent’s nephew Mr [RESPONDENT] from August 2021 to present, and that arrears of the service charge have arisen sporadically since before September 2022.

11. The Applicant has endeavoured to collect service charges from the Respondent, but no funds have been paid.

12. On 10th January 2024 the Respondent sent an email to a member of CVL confirming that her nephew was to pay the service charges on her behalf. The Respondent did not challenge the amount or indeed the payability of the

HAV/21UF/LSC/2025/0661/IC

3 charges. CVL contacted Mr [NAME] on 19th June 2024 to request payment, but none was received.

13. The service charges for the years ending September 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 are all unpaid in the total sum of £2,159.52.

14. The Applicant seeks to recover this sum plus interest calculated in accordance with the lease in the sum of £114.21 and legal costs which have now increased to £5,880.

15. Formal demands for payment of the service charge were sent to the Respondent on 10th October 2024 [p69]. A Letter of Claim was sent on 17th January 2025 [p75] and a further demand was sent on 4th April 2025 [p80].

16. On June 9th, 2025, the Applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal stating that she had not received any witness statement or correspondence from the Respondent [p140]

17. The Tribunal has received no acknowledgment or submissions from the Respondent who has failed to engage with the proceedings. The Lease 18. The Lease for the property [p38] is dated 8th March 2006. Clause 3 (2) (i) sets out the Lessees responsibility to pay “the service charge” and Clause 2 (15) sets out the Lessees responsibility to pay legal costs and surveyors fees in contemplation of proceedings under Sections 146 and 147 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

19. Clause 3 (2) (ii) (d) of the Lease provides for the Lessor to charge interest for any sums that are outstanding for more than 21 days until such time as payment is received. The Law 27A Liability to pay service charges: Jurisdiction (1) An application may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to— (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) An application may also be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to—

HAV/21UF/LSC/2025/0661/IC

4 (a) the person by whom it would be payable, (b) the person to whom it would be payable, (c) the amount which would be payable, (d) the date at or by which it would be payable, and (e) the manner in which it would be payable. Matters Considered and Determined 20. Having seen the supporting documentation, including the lease and approved accounts the Tribunal determines that the service charges for the years in question are payable by the [NAME] of Flat 3.

21. Relying on its expertise and experience the Tribunal found that the amounts of the charges were in a reasonable range for a property of this type and as detailed in the accounts provided.

22. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has not questioned the amount or payability of any of the charges.

23.

Accordingly, and in the absence of any comment from the Respondent except her statement that her nephew should pay the charges, the Tribunal determines that the Respondent is liable for and should pay all the unpaid service charges for the years ending September 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 in the total sum of £2,159.52.

24. The Respondent must also pay the Applicant’s legal costs which, to date, amount to £5,880 and interest as calculated to 10th April 2025 in the sum of £114.21. Further interest will accrue until such time as full payment is made.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal Regional office to deal with it more efficiently.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

HAV/21UF/LSC/2025/0661/IC

5 4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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

  • Service charges are reasonable if they are based on actual expenses.
  • Service charges are reasonable if the process includes proper consultation and management.
  • Service charges are reasonable if they comply with the lease and relevant legislation.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Service charges are not reasonable if the tenant is not obligated to pay under the lease.
  • Service charges are not reasonable if the determination process does not follow the lease agreement.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision determined that the service charges for the years ending September 2022-2025 are payable by the tenant, along with interest and legal fees.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the lease agreement and approved accounts showing the charges were reasonable.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.27A was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the reasonableness of the service charges as per the lease agreement.

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

The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they understand their lease agreement and the reasonableness of the service charges.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The lease agreement, approved accounts, and witness statements mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision must seek permission from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is recommended to seek 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.