Service Charges and Administration Fees Determined Reasonable

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST – TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

__________________________________________________________

Case Reference CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034

Properties 1, 2, 3 & 4 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant [NAME] (in person) accompanied by [APPELLANT]

Respondent [RESPONDENT] (managing by HML)

Represented by [NAME], [NAME] director of [COMPANY].

[NAME] [NAME], pursuant to s27A of the Landlord & Tenant Act7 1985, to determine the liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges (section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) and administration charges (Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2022)

Tribunal Members Judge Stephen Reeder Valuer member [NAME] of hearing 9 June 2025 (in person at Cambridge magistrates court) Date of Decision 9 June 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________

DECISION __________________________________________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

2

DECISION

1. The tribunal determines that the following sums are payable and reasonable as service charges in respect of the year ending 31 March 2024 (adopting the item descriptions in the certified accounts for that year) -

Insurance – buildings £800 Cleaning – general £240 Electricity – communal £68.82 General repairs £468 (actually gardening, proportion at 1/10th) Drains, gutters and pipes £650 Fire alarm maintenance zero Emergency lighting zero Fire doors £360 [NAME] £61 Accountant £360 Combined H&S and FRA £480 Asbestos survey zero Out of hours/Emergency cover £30 Management fee – Fixed £600 Administration Fee £84 Bank Charges £3 Irrecoverable VAT zero

2. The [NAME] includes an [NAME] pursuant to s20C of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and/or paragraph 5A in Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which reduces or extinguishes the tenants’ liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs as contractual costs under the lease. Neither party directed the tribunal to a provision in the lease providing for the respondent to recover its costs relating to this tribunal as a service or administration charge. Were it necessary, having regard to the tribunal’s determinations and the outcome of the proceedings, the tribunal would make an order pursuant to s20C of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and/or paragraph 5A in Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to extinguish the applicants’ liability to pay a service or administration charge in respect of litigation costs as contractual costs under the lease.

3. The applicants have paid both an issue fee of £100 and a hearing fee of £200. Having regard to Rule 13(2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, and to the tribunal’s determinations and the outcome of the proceedings, the tribunal orders that the respondent shall re-imburse those costs to the applicants.

4. In considering whether to exercise its power to make any party costs order the Tribunal has careful regard to section 29(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 read against the overriding objective in Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules and the guidance given by the Chamber President and Deputy President in [ADDRESS] [COMPANY] v [NAME], [NAME] v [NAME], [NAME] v [NAME] Rd Management [COMPANY] [2016] UKUT 0290 (LC). Having regard to the tribunal’s determinations, the outcome of the [NAME] and the conduct of the parties the tribunal does not make any party costs order.

3

REASONS

The [NAME], property and parties

5. The lead applicant is [APPELLANT[NAME] of 2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. She makes the [NAME] on her own account and for the lessees of Nos 1 ([NAME] and [NAME]), 3 ([RESPONDENT]) and 4 ([RESPONDENT]) [ADDRESS].

6. The respondent freeholder is [RESPONDENT] who engaged [COMPANY] to manage [ADDRESS] throughout the relevant period for the account year ending 31 March 2024.

7. [ADDRESS] is development of 5 flats on 3 floors of the building at 37-39 High Street, Barkway. Flats 1 and 2 are located on the ground floor, flats 3 and 4 on the first floor, and flat 5 on the second floor. It has internal common areas providing access through the building and to the flats. It has very small grounds to the front and sides with more extensive grounds to the rear which include a drying area and 9 communal parking spaces. A driveway to the side of the building provides vehicular access to and past [ADDRESS] and then to 5 maisonettes located at the rear of the grounds.

The procedural history

8. The [NAME] was considered on the papers by the regional judge. On 2 September 2024 Judge Hardman made a detailed case management and directions order, and a final hearing was listed on 10 January 2025. At that hearing [NAME[NAME] appeared in person accompanied by [RESPONDENT]. The respondent [RESPONDENT] and agent HML was represented by [NAME] of [NAME]. Both parties had comprehensively failed to comply with the directions order. Despite the best efforts of the tribunal the hearing could not proceed. The tribunal determined that neither party had adequately complied with the case management directions order made by Judge Hardman on 2 September 2024 to enable the tribunal to properly determine the [NAME] at that hearing.

9. The tribunal made an order on 10 January 2025 which adjourned or postponed the final hearing pursuant to Rule 6(j) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and directed it be relisted before the same tribunal on the first available date after 10 March 2025. That order recorded the tribunal’s reasons as –

a. The tenant’s [NAME] as filed erroneously challenges the budget (estimated) service charges for the financial year ending 31 March 2024, whereas it intends to challenge the actual service charges for that year. No proposed reasonable sums for each service charge items have been filed as directed by paragraph 5 of the directions order.

b. The respondent has not filed any completed schedule, statement of case, witness statements or service charge accounts, demands and invoices etc as directed by paragraph 7 of the directions order.

c. The parties agree that the [NAME] before the tribunal relates to the actual service charges in the right-hand column of the ‘[ADDRESS] income and expenditure account for the year ending 31 March 2024’ (which was at page 4 of the applicant’s evidence bundle filed for that hearing).

4

10. The tribunal’s order of 10 January 2025 also recorded that it had considered the lease filed which related to [ADDRESS] and providing that this lease is in the same terms for all of the 5 properties numbered 1-[ADDRESS] (which neither party could confirm at the hearing on 10 January 2025) its preliminary view was that-

a. Each of the service charge expenditure items challenged appears to fall within the lessees’ liabilities pursuant to that lease.

b. The lease does not appear to provide for a reserve fund to build up a reasonable sum toward planned major repairs and renewals, but such a fund may be considered and agreed by the lessor and lessees and accrued in instalments with the service charges instalments.

c. The relevant costs recoverable are those which relate to the works and services for the block which comprises Nos 1-[ADDRESS] and its common areas and grounds for the benefit of the block, and nothing more or wider.

d. The proportionate part due from each lessee is one fifth of the relevant costs, subject to the landlord agreeing otherwise.

11. The same tribunal was reconvened on 9 June 2025 for the final hearing.

12. Since the hearing on 10 January 2025, and in accordance with the order made on that date, the applicants have filed ‘evidence bundle 2’ comprising 44 pages of documents with a ‘comments’ and feedback’ document to the front, and the respondent has filed a 212-page bundle. Those bundles now include the documents necessary for the determination of the [NAME] including the final certified service charge account for the year ending March 2024, the income and expenditure schedule, related invoices and documents, related surveys and reports, the management agreement and costs schedule, and the completed ‘Scott Schedule’. In addition, the tribunal office has received written correspondence from the lessees of flat 1 ([NAME] and [NAME]), 3 ([NAME]) and 4 ([NAME]) confirming they wish to be joined as applicants.

The hearing

13. On 9 June 2025 the applicants have been represented by [NAME[NAME] (the lessee of flat 2) accompanied by [NAME] and [NAME]. For the purposes of this decision, she is referred to as “the applicants”.

14. On 9 June 2005 the respondent [RESPONDENT] has been represented by its [NAME] director [NAME]. She stated that the agent [COMPANY] is unable to attend. For the purposes of this decision, she is referred to as “the respondent”.

15. The orders made on 2 September 2024 and 10 January 2025 directed the parties to file and serve any witness statements as to fact and made provision for any [NAME] to rely upon expert evidence. No witness statements have been filed. No party sought to call any witness evidence. No expert evidence has been sought.

16. In accordance with the order made on 10 January 2025 the parties have convened a meeting and telephone conversations prior to this hearing to explore which of the service charges are agreed and which are disputed and which the tribunal is now requested to determine.

5

17. The tribunal is grateful for the assistance of both [NAME[NAME] and [NAME] at the hearing on 9 June 2025.

The lease

18. The parties have confirmed that the leases in relation to each of 1-[ADDRESS] are in the same form and accept the tribunal’s previous indications as to liability to pay and due proportion as recorded in paragraph 10 of this Decision.

The law

19. The Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 as amended by the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (hereafter ‘the LTA 1985’) sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine liability to pay service charges. Section 27A(1) of 1985 Act provides as follows –

An [NAME] 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 is payable.

20. Section 18 sets out the meanings of ‘service charge’ and ‘relevant costs’.

21. Section 19 sets out that jurisdiction to limit service charges to those relevant costs which are reasonably incurred and to those which arise from works and services of a reasonable standard.

22. Section 20C LTA 1985 sets out the jurisdiction, where the tribunal considers that it is just and equitable to do so, to grant an order providing that all or any of the costs incurred by the landlord in connection with proceedings before this tribunal are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the lessee or any other person or persons specified in the [NAME]. Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 provides jurisdiction for the Tribunal to make an order to reduce or extinguish the tenant’s’ liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs.

23. Part 1 of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (hereafter ‘CLARA 2002’) sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine the payability and reasonableness of administration charges. Section 5(1) of Part 1 to Schedule 11 provides –

An [NAME] may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination whether an administration 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,

6

(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.

24. Section 1 provides a definition of ‘administration charge’. Sections 2 & 3 provide that a variable administration charge is payable only to the extent that the charge specified in lease is reasonable, that the formula specified for determining the charge is reasonable, and that amount of the charge is reasonable.

Discussions & determination

25. The [NAME] challenges the services charges demanded for the year ending 31 March 2024 which are –

Insurance – buildings £800 Cleaning – general £240 Electricity – communal £189 General repairs £468 Drains, gutters and pipes £870 Fire alarm maintenance zero Emergency lighting zero Fire doors £360 [NAME] £61 Accountant £360 Combined H&S and FRA £480 Asbestos survey zero Out of hours/Emergency cover £60 Management fee – Fixed £1,200 Administration Fee £84 Bank Charges £3 Irrecoverable VAT zero

26. There is no dispute that each of the items is a relevant charge in relation to which the Applicants are liable to pay a service charge contribution under the lease. There is no dispute that the apportionment is equally between flats 1-[ADDRESS], and so 1/5th, other than in respect of service charge costs relating to the gardens and driveway. Following the pre-hearing meeting and/or telephone discussions between the parties some of the items are now agreed and some challenged on the basis of the reasonableness of the sums demanded. During the hearing each of the service charge items on the account was considered.

Insurance – buildings

27. The sum claimed is £800. The policy is sourced via an [NAME] to obtain open [NAME] value for money. This process was explained to [RESPONDENT[NAME] in a telephone discussion with the respondent after the January 2025 hearing. As a result, the applicants do not challenge the sum. The failure to explain this procedure at an earlier stage is poor management practice. The marked disparity between a budgeted sum of £5,200 for buildings insurance and actual cost of £800 is an example of the poor quality of the management.

7

Cleaning – general

28. The sum claimed is £240, being the same as the budgeted sum. It is not challenged.

Electricity – communal

29. The sum claimed is £189. After a meeting between the parties following the January 2025 hearing HML have confirmed that electricity invoices in the sums of £15.62 and £104.56 which to refer and so relate to the respondent’s separate adjacent property at 8 High Street have been incorrectly recharged to [ADDRESS]. The actual invoiced electricity cost for [ADDRESS] is £68.82. This sum is accepted by the applicants. The Respondent assured the tribunal that the accounting procedure has been rectified going forwards. The lack of adequate and accurate meter recording and resulting billing is poor management. The tribunal notes that the sum budgeted was £700. Again, the marked disparity between the budgeted sum and actual cost (both that claimed and that the actual cost) is an example of the poor quality of the management.

General repairs

30. The sum claimed is £468. During a telephone conversation after the January 2025 meeting the respondent confirmed that this sum actually relates to the cost of gardening. This was confirmed during the hearing. The sum claimed is evidenced by invoices, and as result the applicant’s do not challenge the actual overall cost. However, during the hearing the issue of apportionment and individual contribution was considered. 1-[ADDRESS] is development of 5 flats in the building at 37-39 High Street, Barkway. It has very small grounds to the front and sides with more extensive grounds to the rear which include a drying area and 9 communal parking spaces. A driveway to the side of the building provides vehicular access the rear and to the parking spaces and to 5 maisonettes located at the rear of the grounds. It is apparent from the hatched plan in the document bundle that the grounds (both garden and driveway) are common to both the 5 flats in [ADDRESS] to the front of the plot and the 5 maisonettes to the rear of the plot. The respondent has, very fairly, proactively proposed that the apportionment and individual contribution is re-calculated from the current 1/5th (based on [ADDRESS] only) to 1/10th (to include the 4 maisonettes). The applicants agree that proposal. The tribunal endorses this agreement.

Drains, gutters and pipes

31. The sum claimed is £870. During the hearing it was stated for the respondent that this charge relates to one item of work carried out in Autumn 2023 to clear the guttering to [ADDRESS] and to repair and replace sections of guttering to the front and rear. It was said to be carried out by 2 men over 1 full day. The applicants contend that there was a first visit by one man to clear the gutters and a second visit by 2 men to carry out only repairs and replacement to only small sections of the gutter. The applicant contend that the labour cost is unreasonably high. The respondent was unable to provide any adequate details of the jobs carried out, the hourly rate applied or the time taken. Based on the description of the clearing and repair/replacement works and the design and extent of [ADDRESS], the tribunal determines that the [NAME] would deliver a charge of £50p/h per worker and that the works could reasonably require 2 workers and would take in the region of 6.5 hours. This results in a sum of £650 which is determined as the sum which is reasonable and payable.

Fire alarm maintenance

8

32. The estimated amount demanded was £450. The actual relevant cost claimed is zero. The tribunal considers that this is another example of poor management. Fire alarm maintenance should be planned and cyclical and therefore easily accurately accounted for.

Emergency lighting

33. The estimated amount demanded was £350. The actual relevant cost claimed is zero. The tribunal considers that this is another example of poor management. Emergency lighting maintenance should be planned and cyclical and therefore easily accurately accounted for.

Fire doors

34. The estimated amount demanded was £254. The actual relevant cost claimed is £360.This relates to visits to [ADDRESS] to check the 5 fire doors in the block. The need for this, process for this and resulting costs was discussed between [RESPONDENT[NAME] and the respondent in a telephone discussion following the January 2025 hearing. As a result, the applicants do not challenge the sum. The tribunal considers that the need for such discussions post issue of the proceedings and between hearings indicates poor management of the service charge process by the respondent.

[NAME]

35. The relevant cost claimed is £61. This is not challenged.

Accountant

36. The relevant cost claimed is £360. This is not challenged. The applicants have challenged the accountants statement in the certified account that “no leaseholder has made a request for a written summary of relevant costs to the service charges payable or demanded as payable in the period in accordance with section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985”. It is apparent from the information before the court that such requests were made. The tribunal considers that the accountant will be [NAME] this statement based on information provided by the respondent and/or its managing agent. The tribunal considers that it is a failure of adequate management which is better reflected in a review of the reasonableness of the management fee, rather than the accountancy fee.

Combined H&S and FRA

37. The estimated amount in the budgeted account for this was zero. The relevant cost claimed is £480. This relates to a combined health and safety and fire risk report by [COMPANY]. The report and related invoice are in the bundle and have been considered during the hearing. The respondent has confirmed that [COMPANY] is a related ‘in house’ company. No explanation has been provided as to how open [NAME] value for money has been tested for this assessment and report. The tribunal considers that is a management failure. However, having considered the report and the assessor details the tribunal considers that the amount of £480 charged is reasonable and payable. The tribunal considers that the budgeted charge at zero indicates poor management. Health and safety and fire risk assessments should be planned and cyclical and therefore easily accurately accounted for.

Asbestos survey

38. The estimated amount demanded was £380. The actual relevant cost claimed is zero. There was no explanation offered for this. Again, the tribunal considers that the difference between the budgeted

9

charge and the actual charge indicates poor management. Asbestos assessments should be planned and cyclical and therefore easily accurately accounted for.

Out of hours/Emergency cover

39. The estimated amount demanded was £60. The actual relevant cost claimed is £60. The respondent stated that this is a cost for out of hours cover outside of the agent HTMLs working hours of 9am- 5pm which comprises a telephone number and an internet accessed portal. No detail could be provided. The applicants state that they have not been provided with details of either and are not aware of any out of hours service. The parties agree that there is no notice board or other information sharing arrangement in the common areas of the block. The tribunal considers that an out of hours emergency service is good management but cannot see how the current arrangement is actually accessible to the lessees. This should be rectified. The tribunal considers that in the circumstances a service charge of £30 is reasonable and payable for the year under consideration.

Administration Fee

40. The relevant cost claimed is £84. This is supported by the documentation in the bundle. It is not challenged.

Bank Charges

41. The relevant cost claimed is £3. This is supported by the documentation in the bundle. It is not challenged.

Irrecoverable VAT

42. The actual relevant cost claimed is zero. It is not considered further.

Management fee – Fixed

43. The estimated amount demanded was £1,000. The actual relevant cost claimed is £1,200. The accounts describe it as a fixed fee. The respondent explains the additional £200 being the result of the addition of VAT. Prior to the hearing the respondent agreed to reimburse the additional £200 to the lessees as a “gesture of goodwill”. The tribunal considers that a management fee of £1200, equating to £240 per flat for the 5 flats in [ADDRESS] is a reasonable fee provided that a reasonable quality of service is provided. There are repeated references to poor management practice in the discussions relating to earlier service charge items. The tribunal was stuck by the marked difference between the estimated expenditure demanded in the interim and the actual relevant cost expenditure reclaimed for the year ending 31 March 2024 as set out below -

Expenditure item Budget Actual

Insurance – buildings £5,200 £800 Cleaning – general £800 £240 Electricity – communal £700 £189 General repairs £1,800 £468 Drains, gutters and pipes £400 £870 Fire alarm maintenance £450 zero Emergency lighting £350 zero Fire doors £254 £360 [NAME] zero £61 Accountant £420 £360

10

Combined H&S and FRA zero £480 Asbestos survey £380 zero Out of hours/Emergency cover £60 £60 Management fee – Fixed £1,000 £1,200 Administration Fee £20 £84 Bank Charges £5 £3 Irrecoverable VAT £5 zero

Total £11,844 £5,175

44. The tribunal considers that the management service in this accounting year was not commensurate with a charge of £1200 and determines that a charge of £600 (£120 per flat) is reasonable and payable the actual management service in this accounting year.

Fees and Costs

45. The [NAME] includes an [NAME] pursuant to s20C of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and/or paragraph 5A in Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which reduces or extinguishes the tenant’s liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs as contractual costs under the lease. Were it necessary, having regard to the tribunal’s determinations and the outcome of the proceedings, the tribunal would make an order pursuant to s20C of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and/or paragraph 5A in Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to extinguish the applicant’s liability to pay a service or administration charge in respect of litigation costs as contractual costs under the lease.

46. The applicants have paid both an issue fee of £100 and a hearing fee of £200. Having regard to Rule 13(2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, and to the tribunal’s determinations and the outcome of the proceedings, the tribunal orders the respondent to re-imburse those costs.

47. In considering whether to exercise its power to make any party costs order the Tribunal has careful regard to section 29(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 read against the overriding objective in Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules and the guidance given by the Chamber President and Deputy President in [ADDRESS] [COMPANY] v [NAME], [NAME] v [NAME], [NAME] v [NAME] Rd Management [COMPANY] [2016] UKUT 0290 (LC). Having regard to the tribunal’s determinations, the outcome of the [NAME] and the conduct of the parties the tribunal does not make any party costs order.

Stephen Reeder Judge of the First Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber

11

XX January 2025

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

a. This annex notifies the parties of any right of appeal pursuant to Rule 36(2) of the (First- tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

b. 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.

c. 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].

d. 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.

e. 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.

f. If the tribunal refuses permission to appeal then a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

The law

48. The Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 as amended by the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (hereafter ‘the LTA 1985’) sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine liability to pay service charges. Section 27A(1) of 1985 Act provides as follows –

(f) the person by whom it is payable, (g) the person to whom it is payable, (h) the amount which is payable, (i) the date at or by which it is payable, and (j) the manner in which is payable.

49. Section 18 sets out the meanings of ‘service charge’ and ‘relevant costs’.

50. Section 19 sets out that jurisdiction to limit service charges to those relevant costs which are reasonably incurred and to those which arise from works and services of a reasonable standard.

12

51. Section 20C LTA 1985 sets out the jurisdiction, where the tribunal considers that it is just and equitable to do so, to grant an order providing that all or any of the costs incurred by the landlord in connection with proceedings before this tribunal are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the lessee or any other person or persons specified in the [NAME]. Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 provides jurisdiction for the Tribunal to make an order to reduce or extinguish the tenant’s’ liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs.

52. Part 1 of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (hereafter ‘CLARA 2002’) sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine the payability and reasonableness of administration charges. Section 5(1) of Part 1 to Schedule 11 provides –

An [NAME] may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination whether an administration charge is payable and, if it is, as to-- (c) the person by whom it is payable, (d) 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.

53. Section 1 provides a definition of ‘administration charge’. Sections 2 & 3 provide that a variable administration charge is payable only to the extent that the charge specified in lease is reasonable, that the formula specified for determining the charge is reasonable, and that amount of the charge is reasonable.

Discussion and determinations

54. For these reasons the tribunal 55. xxxx 56. xxx 57. xxx

Fees and Costs

58. The [NAME] includes an [NAME] pursuant to s20C of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and/or paragraph 5A in Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which reduces or extinguishes the tenant’s liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs as contractual costs under the lease. Were it necessary, having regard to the tribunal’s determinations and the outcome of the proceedings, the tribunal would make an order pursuant to s20C of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and/or paragraph 5A in Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to extinguish the applicant’s liability to pay a service or administration charge in respect of litigation costs as contractual costs under the lease.

59. The applicant has paid both an issue fee of £100 and a hearing fee of £200. Having regard to Rule 13(2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, and to the

13

tribunal’s determinations and the outcome of the proceedings, the tribunal does/does not make an order directing the respondent to re-imburse those costs.

60. In considering whether to exercise its power to make any party costs order the Tribunal has careful regard to section 29(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 read against the overriding objective in Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules and the guidance given by the Chamber President and Deputy President in [ADDRESS] [COMPANY] v [NAME], [NAME] v [NAME], [NAME] v [NAME] Rd Management [COMPANY] [2016] UKUT 0290 (LC). Having regard to the tribunal’s determinations, the outcome of the [NAME] and the conduct of the parties the tribunal does not make any party costs order.

Stephen Reeder Judge of the First Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber XX January 2025

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

g. This annex notifies the parties of any right of appeal pursuant to Rule 36(2) of the (First- tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

h. 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.

i. 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].

j. 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.

k. 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.

l. If the tribunal refuses permission to appeal then a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

14