VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Leaseholders Ruled Liable for Service Charges Despite Financial Hardship

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that leaseholders must pay service charges as stated in their lease agreement, even though they are facing financial troubles and a receiver is managing their lease. This ruling ensures that leaseholders adhere to their contractual obligations.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is liable to pay service charges as specified in their lease agreement.

Topics

tenancy agreementsservice chargesfinancial difficulties

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.27ATribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 r.9(3)(e)

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined that the leaseholders are liable to pay the service charges as per their lease agreement.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined that the leaseholders are liable to pay service charges as per their lease agreement, despite experiencing financial difficulties and having a receiver appointed to manage their lease. The decision was based on the substantive and procedural requirements of the lease and relevant statutory provisions.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference

: BIR/00FY/LIS/2022/0008

Subject Property

: 6 Jenner [APPELLANT]

[POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

: [COUNSEL] (Ref: 06JE)

Respondents

: [redacted]

(2) [NAME] of Application

: Application under section 27A of

the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a determination as to liability to pay service charges

Member of the Tribunal : Deputy Regional Judge Nigel Gravells

Date of Decision

: 23 March 2022

________________________________________

DECISION ________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Introduction 1 By an application dated 17 February 2022, and received by the Tribunal on 18 February 2022, the Applicant, [APPELLANT], the company responsible for the management of 6 Jenner House, [ADDRESS], [APPELLANT], Mapperley, Nottingham [POSTCODE] (‘the subject property’), applied under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) for a determination as to the liability of the Respondents, [NAME] and [NAME], the leaseholders of the subject property, to pay the services charges demanded by the Applicant in respect of the subject property. 2 The determination is sought because the leaseholders are experiencing financial difficulties and a receiver has been appointed to take over the leaseholders’ lease of the subject property. The leaseholders’ mortgagee has indicated that it will pay the outstanding service charges if the Tribunal determines that the leaseholders are liable to pay those service charges. 3 Although there is credible evidence that the Respondents do not dispute their liability under the terms of their lease to pay service charges totalling £1649.42 in respect of the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, the Respondents have not formally agreed or admitted their liability (which, by virtue of section 27A(4) of the 1985 Act, would preclude the Tribunal from determining the Applicant’s application). 4 However, the Tribunal was provisionally of the view that there was no reasonable prospect of the Respondents succeeding in establishing that they were not liable to pay the service charges in question. 5 On 23 February 2022 the Tribunal therefore wrote to the parties, indicating that it was minded, pursuant to rule 9(3)(e) and (7)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (‘the 2013 Rules’), to bar the Respondents from taking further part in the proceedings. 6 The parties were given the opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed barring; but neither party made any representations. 7 The Tribunal therefore – (i) orders, pursuant to rule 9(3)(e) and (7)(a) of the 2013 Rules, that the Respondents are barred from taking further part in the proceedings; (ii) summarily determines the Applicant’s application pursuant to rule 9(8) of the 2013 Rules. Summary Determination 8 By clause 3(2) of the Respondents’ lease of the subject property, the Respondents covenant ‘in respect of every Maintenance Year to pay the service charge … by two equal instalments in advance on the half-yearly days ….’

9 On 17 March 2021 the Applicant wrote to the Respondents, enclosing a demand (dated 1 April 2021) for service charge payments in advance totalling £1649.42 in respect of the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. As the Applicant indicated, clause 3(2) of the lease provided for that sum to be payable by two instalments on 1 April 2021 and 1 October 2021. 10 The demand was accompanied by an itemised budget and a summary of the rights and obligations of the Respondents (as required by section 21B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985). 11 The Tribunal is satisfied that the demand was issued in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Respondents’ lease and in accordance with the requirements of the relevant statutory provisions. 12 The Tribunal therefore determines that the Respondents are liable to pay the sum of £1649.42 for service charges in respect of the subject property for the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022.

23 March 2022

Professor Nigel P Gravells Deputy Regional Judge

📊 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 tenant is liable to pay service charges as specified in their lease agreement.
  • Courts allow claims when landlords provide sufficient evidence of necessary actions.
  • Dispensation from consultation requirements is reasonable if it causes no relevant prejudice to tenants.
  • Service charges are considered reasonable if they cover essential services and management costs.
  • Tenants have the right to challenge the reasonableness of service charges and compliance with consultation requirements.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors listed against the claimant in the provided cases.)

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 leaseholders are liable to pay the service charges as per their lease agreement.

Who was involved?

The case involved leaseholders experiencing financial difficulties and a company responsible for the management of the property.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the leaseholders are liable to pay the service charges because the lease clearly states the obligation and the leaseholders did not formally admit or agree to their liability.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 27A and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the leaseholders had not formally agreed or admitted their liability under the terms of their lease.

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

The decision was in favour of the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, it means that they must adhere to the terms of their lease agreement regarding service charges, regardless of financial difficulties.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included credible evidence that the leaseholders did not dispute their liability under the terms of their lease to pay service charges.

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 involving lease agreements and service charges.

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.