First-tier Tribunal Varies Lease for Equal Service Charge Recovery
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal changed a lease to make sure all tenants pay their share of service charges fairly. This decision was made to align the payments with what other tenants in the building pay.
⚖️ Legal holding
A lease can be varied to ensure fair recovery of service charges among tenants.
📖 What the law says
Under this section, any party to a long lease of a flat can apply to the appropriate tribunal for an order to vary the lease. The application can be made on the grounds that the lease does not provide satisfactory arrangements for various matters, including the repair or maintenance of the flat, building, or related land/buildings, insurance of the building, repair or maintenance of necessary installations and services, recovery of expenditure by one party from another, and the computation of service charges.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal varied a lease to align the payment of service charges with other tenants in the building.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal varied a lease to align the payment of service charges with other tenants in the building, ensuring fair recovery of service charges. The decision was made under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 by Judge LM Tagliavini and Miss M Krisko MRICS.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BJ/LVL/2019/0004 Property : Flat 2 (Flat B) 30 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondent : [redacted] (2)[COUNSEL] [NAME] :
N/A Type of Application : Variation of a lease Tribunal Member : Judge LM Tagliavini Miss M Krisko MRICS Date and place of hearing (paper) : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] 4 June 2019 Date of decision : 4 June 2019
DECISION
2
The tribunal’s summary decision:
I. The tribunal determines that the lease dated 22 July 1981 granting a term of 99 years to the lessee from 25 March 1981 should be varied at clause 7 to substitute the words “a sum equal to 30.00% of the total of the expenses and outgoings incurred or chargeable by the Lessor……” with the words “a sum equal to one third of the total of the expenses and outgoings incurred or chargeable by the Lessor….” _____________________________________________________
The application 1. This is an application made by the Applicant landlord seeking the tribunal’s variation of a lease pursuant to the provisions of section 35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 The property 2. The subject property is a flat on the first floor of a converted house comprising a total of three flats of similar flats on the ground, first and second floors of the building. The subject property is subject to a lease dated 22 July 1981 granting a term of 99 years with effect from 25 March 1981.
3. Clause 7 of the lease of the subject property requires the lease to make payment of 30% in respect of expenses and outgoings incurred or chargeable for services provided in accordance with the terms of the lease. This contrasts with the provisions made in the leases for Flat 1 (Flat A) and Flat 3 (Flat C) which provides that the proportion payable in respect of expenses and outgoings incurred or chargeable for services is one-third.
4. Consequently, the Applicant landlord seeks a variation to the Respondent’s lease of Flat 2 in order to bring it into line with those of the leases of Flat 1 and Flat 3, so that the Respondent also pays one-third of the expenses and outgoings incurred or chargeable for services provided by the Applicant landlord. The Applicant’s case 5. In accordance with the tribunal’s directions dated 8 April 2019 the Applicant provided proof of service of this application on the lessors of Flat 1/Flat A ([NAME] and [NAME]) and Flat 2/Flat C Dr [NAME] by a letter dated 16 April 2019 from [COMPANY]. The tribunal also provided the tribunal with a bundle of documents comprising the relevant parts of each of the three leases.
3 The Respondent’s case 6. Neither the Respondents or the lessees of Flat 1 and Flat 3 corresponded with the tribunal or sought to make any objection to the application. The tribunal’s decision and reasons 7. As neither party made a request for an oral hearing the tribunal determined this application on the documents provided.
8. The tribunal finds that the requirements of section 35(2)(e) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 are met. In particular the tribunal finds that clause 7 of the Respondent’s lease fails to make satisfactory provision for the sufficient recovery of service charges incurred or chargeable by the lessor in the same proportion as specified in the leases of the other lessees in the building.
9. Further, in the absence of any objection to the application by the Respondent and the statutory requirements of the 1987 Act having been met, the tribunal considers it appropriate to grant the variation sought by the Applicant.
10. In conclusion the tribunal grants the variation of clause 7 of the Respondent’s lease to read “one-third” in substitution for the figure of “30.00%” as indicated in the Applicant’s draft variation included in the bundle of documents for hearing.
Signed: Judge Tagliavini
Dated: 4 June 2019
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Validity of New Lease Clauses
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Varies Leases to Correct Drafting Errors
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Ordered to Repay £5,244.87 for Unlicensed Rental Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Excludes Unreasonable Costs from Residential Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenant Breached Lease Clauses
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Extension Premiums
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Premium for New Lease Under Leasehold Reform Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Unreasonable and Uncollectible
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Extension Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Reasonableness of Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Landlord to Bypass Consultation Requirements for…
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 lease for the flat did not allow the landlord to recover enough service charges.
- The service charge proportion in the flat's lease was different from the other two flats in the building.
- The other lessees and the respondent did not object to the application.
- The application met the legal requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal varied the lease to align the payment of service charges with other tenants in the building.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the tenant of Flat 2 were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to vary the lease because the current payment structure was unfair compared to other tenants in the building.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the current lease did not provide for the fair recovery of service charges.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be able to have their lease varied if they can show that the current payment structure is unfair.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing the difference in payment structures between tenants was important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.
