Leaseholder Wins Service Charge Disputes in First-tier Tribunal
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled in favour of the a person, disallowing certain service charges and preventing administrative costs from being passed onto the a person. The landlord was barred from further participation due to non-compliance with directions.
⚖️ Legal holding
The tribunal's decision turned on the principle that a landlord cannot pass on to a tenant costs incurred in proceedings where the tenant has not been engaged with the process, as stated under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal barred the respondent from the proceedings due to non-compliance with directions and ruled against the service charge claims, issuing orders to prevent certain costs from being passed onto the applicant.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that certain service charges were unreasonable and disallowed them. It also barred the landlord from participating in the proceedings due to non-compliance with directions.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case reference
Property
Applicants
Representative
Respondent
Representative
Type of application
Tribunal members
Venue
Date of Hearing
Date of Decision
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
CHI/OOMR/LAC/2024/0001, and
CHI/LSC/2024/0008
5 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
[NAME]
In Person
[COMPANY] of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges Section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
[NAME], [NAME] Centre
8 November 2024
8 November 2024
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:-
Procedural History
Background
1. The Applicant seeks determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges for an unknown period, for a sum of £1465.00, by application dated 15 January 2024. The Application also applied for Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which seeks an order that costs incurred in connection with proceedings before the tribunal in respect of the service charge cannot be passed onto the [NAME]. Further included was an Application under paragraph 5A of Sch 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, for the tribunal to make an Order to prevent any administration charges in respect of the litigation costs, being passed onto the [NAME].
2. A second Application was made, heard with the first, for determination as to liability to pay an administration charge. This application also included a request for an Order under Section 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to prevent costs incurred by the landlord being passed back to the [NAME].
3. The Tribunal issued directions on the 16 July 2024 inviting the parties to a Case Management Hearing on Friday 13 September 2024. The Directions requested that the parties send to the Tribunal by 30 August 2024 a position statement.
4.The Tribunal Case Management and Dispute Resolution Hearing took place on the 13 September 2024. The Applicant attended having previously complied with the Directions in submitting the required position statement.
5. The Respondent did not submit a position statement nor attended the hearing.
6. Directions were issued following the Case Management and Dispute Resolution hearing, requiring the Applicant to submit items specified in the directions to the Respondent by 27 September 2024. The Respondent was required by 11 October 2024 to similarly submit items specified by the Directions to the Applicant. Finally, the Applicant had a right of reply to the Respondent by 18 October 2024. The Applicant being responsible for the preparation and submission of the bundle to the tribunal by 25 October 2024.
7. An Application was made by the Applicant dated 17 October 2024 for the barring of [APPELLANT] and [COMPANY] from the Tribunal process following their failure to comply with Directions and requesting attendance at
2
the Case Management and Dispute Resolution hearing. Also, failure to comply with the Directions dated 13 September 2024.
8.Further Directions were issued by Judge Lumby on 25 October 2024. The Directions at para 11 noted that by 4pm on 7 November 2024, the Respondent shall send to the Tribunal and the Applicant any representations it wishes to make as to why it failed to comply with the Tribunals Directions. Further it should also address, to the tribunal, why they should not be barred from further participation in these cases and any responses or submission made by it disregarded.
9. Noting at para 12 , “The judge chairing the hearing on 8 November will as a preliminary issue make a decision as to whether and the extent to which the Respondent is entitled to participate in these cases, if at all. “
10. The Tribunal confirmed that no submissions had been received by the tribunal prior to the commencement of the hearing at 10:00am on 8 November 2024
11. The Tribunal in the absence of adherence to the Directions bars the Respondent from the proceedings.
Substantive issue.
12. The Applicant explained they had purchased the property in June 2022. The property is a leasehold house on a 125-year lease from 9 February 2018. Prior to this in May 2021 the building was subject to a Right to Manage Order.
13. The property is one of five properties in the development all leasehold four flats and one house.
14. The Respondent had claimed by letter dated 28 November 2023 that the Applicant owned £1465.00 for “Amount outstanding from previous account”. No further details were forthcoming to explain the item. In the absence of any information concerning this item the tribunal disallows the item.
15.The second item on the letter of the 28 November 2023 was “ground rent due for period January-December 2024 £200.00. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction relating to ground rents and does not consider the item.
15. The next item is described as “admin costs for collection of ground rent £60,00”. The Applicant contended that there were no provisions within the lease that permitted the Respondent to claim this figure in relation to the collection of ground rent, The Tribunal concurs and the amount is disallowed.
Application for Section 20 C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
3
The Applicant made an application under this provision. The Respondent has failed to engage with the process, failing to comply with any of the Directions, the Tribunal therefore makes an order under Section 20c preventing any costs incurred by the Landlord in these proceedings being levied on the Applicant,
Application under paragraph 5A of Sch 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
The Applicant made an application under this provision for the Tribunal to make an Order to prevent any administration charges in respect of the litigation costs, being passed onto the [NAME].
The Respondent has failed to engage with the process, failing to comply with any of the Directions, the Tribunal therefore makes an order under paragraph 5A of schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. preventing any administration costs incurred by the landlord in these proceedings being levied on the applicant,
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) must seek permission to do so by making written Application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
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.
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. 7
4
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reduces Service Charges for Tenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Decides on Reasonable Service Charges and Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Certain Service Charges Unreasonable and Unpayabl…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Administration Charges for Ground Rent Colle…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Call System Upgrade Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Limits Landlord's Costs and Extinguishes Tenants' Liabi…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Can Withhold Service Charges Due to Lack of Documentation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Proper Contributions to Service Charges
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 tribunal disallowed an outstanding amount because the respondent provided no further details to explain the item.
- The tribunal disallowed administration costs for ground rent collection because the lease did not permit such a charge.
- The tribunal ordered that the landlord's costs for the proceedings could not be passed to the applicant due to the landlord's failure to engage.
- The tribunal ordered that administration charges for litigation costs could not be passed to the applicant because the landlord failed to comply with directions.
- The tribunal barred the respondent from the proceedings due to their repeated failure to adhere to directions.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided that certain service charges were unreasonable and disallowed them, while also preventing administrative costs from being passed onto the leaseholder.
Who was involved?
The case involved a leaseholder and a landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the service charges were unreasonable because the landlord failed to provide sufficient information to justify them.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The court applied the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 27A and 20C, and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Schedule 11 paragraph 5A.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the landlord failed to provide adequate justification for the 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 challenge unreasonable service charges and prevent administrative costs from being passed onto them.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Position statements and compliance with court directions were crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a person wishing to appeal 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 such cases.
