Tenant Entitled to Recover Reasonable Costs Under Lease Provisions

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BK/LSC/2019/0347

Property

Applicant: [redacted]

75 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] ( [APPELLANT] ( Claimant/Applicant

Representative : [COUNSEL] Respondents : [redacted] Deceased) (2) [COUNSEL] [NAME] : In person represented by daughter Type of [NAME] : Payability of service charge. Tribunal Members

: [NAME]

In the county court

Date of Decision :

Judge Jim Shepherd, with Michael Taylor FRICS as assessor

12th May 2020

COSTS DECISION

On 19th March 2020 the Tribunal set aide the costs part of its decision in this case. Submissions were invited in relation to the challenge by the Respondents against the costs claimed by the successful Applicant. In summary the Respondents challenged the following:

a) The statement of costs was poorly drafted.

b) Copy invoices were sought to confirm the indemnity principle had been applied.

c) The hourly rates were excessive,

d) The fee earners claims did not tally up.

e) The number of fee earners on the case was excessive.

f) The time spent was excessive.

g) The costs are not reasonable or proportionate.

The Respondents offered £3750 against the amount claimed by the Applicant of £7357.20.

The Applicant responded to the challenge in their submissions dated 2nd April 2020:

a) The drafting of the statement of costs did not affect liability.

b) The Applicant relied on the costs provision in the lease.

c) The hourly rates were reasonable.

d) The fee earners hourly rates were based on experience.

e) The number of fee earners working on the case was reasonable.

f) The time spent was reasonable.

g) The costs were reasonable and reliance was placed on the lease provision.

Decision

The Tribunal has previously decided that the costs were reasonably incurred. The claim was for a relatively large sum of £20457.31. The Applicant was entirely successful in the claim and the costs claimed appeared non excessive in the Tribunal’s experience. The Respondents submissions which represent a broad attack on the costs claimed fail to persuade the Tribunal

that its original decision is not correct. The statement of costs was not unusual. There were costs provisions in the lease which the Applicant was entitled to rely on. The hourly rates were not excessive. Neither was the number of fee earners involved.

Accordingly, the Respondents are liable to pay the Applicant’s costs summarily assessed at £7357.20 within 28 days of receipt of the order.

[NAME]

12th May 2020

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. 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. 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]. 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. 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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).