Tenant Loses Challenge to Service Charges in First-tier Tribunal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BG/LSC/2024/0655 & LON/00BG/LSC/2024/0509 Property : (1) 138 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (2) 144 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] (2) [NAME] and [COUNSEL] : (1) In person (2) N/A ([NAME] settled) Respondent : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL], counsel Type of [NAME] : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Judge [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 10 November 2025 9 December 2025

DECISION

2

LON/00BG/LSC/2024/0655 (1) The tribunal determines that all sums challenged as detailed in the paragraphs below, are reasonable and payable by the first applicant to the respondent. (2) The tribunal does not make an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. (3) The tribunal does not make an order under Schedule 11, para 5 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. LON/00BG/LSC/2024/0509 [NAME] withdrawn.

The [NAME] 1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord

and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) [and Schedule 11 to the

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”)] as to

the amount of service charges and (where applicable) administration

charges payable by the applicant in respect of the service charge years

2010 to 2025 and 2025/26 (estimated). The applicant is the leasehold

owner of 138 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the Property’) under

a shared ownership lease and the respondent is the freehold owner and

landlord. The property is a ground floor flat in a building of 3 floors. 2. The first applicant seeks to dispute items of service charge incurred in

the service charge years 2010 to 2024 and 2025/26 (estimated) in

respect of the following heads of service charge:

• Building insurance

• Building insurance excess layer

• Management fee

• Sewers and drains repairs

• Entryphone maintenance

3

• [NAME] maintenance and horticulture

• Bulk rubbish clearance

• [NAME] security / concierge

• Communal repairs • Caretaking / cleaning

• Pest control Preliminary issues 3. Shortly before the hearing was due to be held, the tribunal was informed

that the second applicants had reached an agreement with the

respondent and no longer wished to proceed with their [NAME]. 4. As the applications had been made separately and it had been directed

only that they would be heard at the same time, the tribunal continued

to hear and determine the first applicant’s case. The hearing 5. The Applicant appeared in person at the hearing and the respondent was

represented by Mr [COUNSEL] of counsel. 6. At the beginning of the hearing the first applicant made an [NAME]

to:

(1) rely upon a bundle of over 1000 pages and a witness statement

as additions to the 203 digital bundle that had been submitted in

accordance with the tribunal’s directions; and

(2) adjourn the substantive hearing so he could ‘ rebuild his case

due to ongoing disclosure problems.’ 7. The respondent had issued an [NAME] to ‘strike out’ the first

applicant’s case an [NAME] which had effectively been adjourned to

the substantive hearing date by Judge Latham on 7 October 2025 at a

further case management hearing. 8. The respondent objected to the first applicants applications. Mr

[APPELLANT] submitted that the applicant was seeking effectively to

have a ‘second bite of the cherry’ as the parties had been given adequate

time to prepare for the hearing and the first applicant was only now

seeking to make clear what his [NAME] concerned. Mr [NAME]

submitted that Mr [NAME] had failed to properly articulate or

4

particularise his [NAME] and had provided to the respondent, three

days before the hearing, a witness statement in support and a bundle of

1000+ pages. Mr [NAME] submitted that an adjournment and the

admission of a further 1000+ pages of documents were disproportionate

to the sums in issue. In any event, Mr [NAME] submitted the

[NAME] should be ‘struck out’ as the first applicant had failed to

establish a prima facie case; Enterprise Home Developments LLP v

Adam [2020] UKUT 0151. 9. Mr [NAME] told the tribunal that he works full-time and had found it

difficult to comply as promptly with the tribunal’s directions as he would

have liked. Further, he had now lost his co-applicants and had wanted

to rely on their presentation of their [NAME] in order to support his

own. The tribunal’s decision and reasons – interim applications 10. Having heard the parties oral submissions on these applications the

tribunal determined it was reasonable and appropriate, having regard to

the ‘overriding object’ and the tribunal’s powers to manage its own

procedures under rules 3 and 6 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier

Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (‘the 2013 rules’)

respectively to:

(i) Dismiss the [NAME] to adjourn; and

(ii) Dismiss the [NAME] to rely on the additional 1000+ pages of

documents.

(iii) Allow the admission of the first applicant’s (undated) witness

statement.

(iv) Dismiss the respondents [NAME] to strike out the first

applicant’s case. 11. The tribunal finds the first applicant has been given ample time, in

which to comply with the tribunal’s directions and further and

amended directions made following a number of case management

hearings, most recently on 7 October 2025. The tribunal finds the

applicant was notified that his additional 1000+ documents had been

sent in an unreadable format to the tribunal. 12. Further, the tribunal finds the applicant had been put on notice by the

respondent that he had failed to specify his [NAME] or make clear

what items of service charge he disputed (interim [NAME] dated 1

October 2025 to ‘strike out’ first applicant’s case). The tribunal finds

the first applicant failed to act on either of these two matters and had

come to the hearing with an [NAME] that failed to fully particularise

5

the heads of service charge he challenged or provide to the tribunal a

readable copy of the additional documents upon which he now sought to

rely, in order to establish their importance (if any) to his [NAME]. 13. The tribunal finds that the second applicants were not his co-claimants,

as these were two separate applications issued at different times but

directed to be heard together as they appeared to concern similar issues

and addresses and both named the same respondent. Therefore, the

tribunal determined that in all the circumstances, the first applicant

should have been ready to proceed the hearing and that the additional

unreadable documentation was on balance, unlikely to be of assistance

to the tribunal in view of the fact the applicant had consistently

failed to properly particularise his case, a substantial part of which relied

on the interpretation of the lease rather than any extraneous documents. 14. Therefore, the tribunal refused the admission of the 1000+ pages. The

tribunal considered the documents were served too late, irrespective of

their corrupted form and their number, disproportionate to the

significantly reduced number of issues it was asked to determine. The

tribunal did not accepts as a good reason the fact that Mr [NAME] was

in full-time work for the failure to provide all the documentation on

which he wished to rely in good time as the directions given by the

tribunal had been generously amended to accommodate the parties. 15. The tribunal finds it reasonable to permit the admission of the first

applicant’s witness statement, as the respondent were not unfairly

prejudiced by its late admission and had sufficient time to read it and

were in a position to be able to answer any points raised in it. 16. The tribunal refused the [NAME] to strike out the applicant’s case.

Although the first applicant’s case was not as clear as it could have been,

the tribunal determined that as all parties were present and ready to

proceed and a determination of the tribunal on the issues raised by the

applicant, were more likely to be of assistance, whether

favourable or not than a refusal to hear the [NAME] in the first

instance having regard to the overriding objective pursuant to r.3 of the

2013 rules. The issues 17. At the start of the hearing the first applicant confirmed to the tribunal

that the only heads of service charge he still sought to dispute were:

(i) Charges he should not pay at all due to there being no communal

areas: i.e.: cleaning, caretaking, communal repairs, [NAME]

management/security and removal of bulk rubbish.

6

(ii) The reasonableness of the amount of charges for building

insurance, management charges and the audit fee. 18. The first applicant relied on his undated witness statement and gave oral

evidence to the tribunal. Mr [NAME] told the tribunal that there was

no communal electricity in the building; the insurance charges were too

high although he had not obtained or provided any alternative quote to

the tribunal; the management of the building was not required and was

in any event it was appalling and the audit fee was not payable, as the

auditor had provided no oversight of the expenses incurred. Mr

[NAME] told the tribunal that the services provided by the respondent,

were either inadequate or non-existent and stated in his witness

statement that:

Despite the evidenced non-compliance shown within this

statement & evidence, the Actual Service Charge has increased

year after year, with alarming and utterly unjustifiable leaps

during 2021/22/23.If, as THCH suggests, the Actual Service

Charge varies due to use of service contracts within an annual

time period : why then, given the evidenced lack of actual service

provision, hasn’t the yearly Actual Service Charge reduced?

Charged services seem to overlap: e.g. Horticulture and

Caretaking/Cleaning : Caretaking/Cleaning and Bulk Rubbish disposal :

My local Authority Council Tax and The THCH Service Charge. THCH

attempt to double-charge for one actual provided service, or for services

actually provided by the local authority. This is fraudulent. Although I

have no alternative quotes for services, It appears that THCH, much like

many other businesses and organisations have enjoyed a certain amount

of profiteering & price gouging during hyperinflationary times, at the

expense of the THCH Owner/Occupiers and tenants. 19. In the Scott schedule provided to the tribunal for the years 2010 to 2018,

Mr [APPELLANT] stated in the box for Tenant’s Comments:

As per 2018 – 2025 schedules, due to respondent not holding

business records prior to 2018. 20. In the Scott Schedules for the service charge years 2018 to 2023 Mr

[NAME] provided some detail as to the reason for his dispute of

individual items and although referred to photographic evidence and

emails did not provide copies of these. No Scott Schedules for the service

charge years 2023 to 2026 were provided. 21. Mr [NAME] drew the tribunal’s attention to the terms of the lease and

submitted the terms of the lease were very wide and provide for the

recovery of service charges incurred in respect of both the [NAME] and the

[NAME]. Mr [NAME] submitted that the audit fee was a modest sum and

a simply designed method to sign off the accounts and not a tool to

provide oversight and recommendations as to how service charges

7

should be incurred. Mr [APPELLANT] submitted that as the first applicant

had failed to provide any alternative quotes for the insurance there was

no evidence to show the previous and current charges were

unreasonable. The tribunal’s decision and reasons – substantive [NAME] 22. Having heard evidence and submissions from the parties and considered

all of the documents provided, the tribunal has made determinations as

follows. 23. The tribunal finds the first applicant is required to pay 1/6 as his

specified portion towards [NAME] service charges. The [NAME] is defined in

the lease in clause 1(2)(e) as:

The [NAME] shall mean all that property shown edged green on

Plan 2 and for the avoidance of doubt shall include the building

known as 136 138 140 142 144 and 146 [ADDRESS]

[POSTCODE] (‘the Building’) and where applicable this shall be

construed as including any part or parts of the Building and/or

the [NAME] or any parts thereof and shall include all

appurtenances additions alterations thereto which may be

carried out during the term and any buildings or outbuildings

which may be erected in replacement thereof 24. Clause 7(5) sets out the service charges payable in respect of the [NAME]

and [NAME] and Clause 7(5)(f) which states:

Description assessed charged imposed or payable on or in

respect of the whole of the [NAME] or in the whole or any part of

the [NAME]. 25. Clause 1(2)(b) of the lease states:

“the [NAME]” means the lifts hallways entrances

landings staircases balconies (save and excepting any

exclusively serving any flat within the [NAME]) refuse bin

enclosure boundary walls or fences and other parts of the [NAME]

and access areas steps pedestrian ways footpaths or access

ways communal play and/or garden areas and car parking

spaces (other than those demised) and the forecourts of the

[NAME] and any other area or facilities in the [NAME] which are or

are intended for use by the Leaseholders of the flats within the

[NAME] together with the Tenants of the [NAME]. 26. The tribunal finds the first applicant is liable to contribute towards the

costs of cleaning, caretaking, communal repairs, [NAME]

management/security and removal of bulk rubbish pursuant to the

8

terms of his lease and as defined by the meaning of the ‘[NAME]’ and

‘[NAME] during the period in dispute. The tribunal also finds the

first applicant had not fully understood the obligations to pay for services

under the terms of his lease, particularly when it did not immediately

appear obvious to him that he was in receipt of these services. 27. The tribunal finds the first applicant has failed to establish a prima facie

case in respect of his challenge to the reasonableness of the amount of

charges for building insurance. The tribunal finds the first applicant

failed to provide reasons for or any comparable evidence to show that

the buildings insurance was too high. 28. Although the first applicant asserted the management of his [NAME] was

‘appalling’, the tribunal finds the management provided is not only to his

[NAME] but also to the [NAME] which includes to both the [NAME]

and the [NAME]. The tribunal finds the first applicant has misunderstood

the purpose of the audit or appreciated that it is a simple tool to sign off

accounts, rather than provide oversight or recommendations. Having

considered these items the tribunal finds both the management fee and

the audit fee charged over the period in dispute to be reasonable and

payable by the first applicant. [NAME] under s.20C and Sch 11 para 5A 29. In the [NAME] form the applicant applied for an order under section

20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Sch 11. Para 5 of the

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Having taken into

account the determinations above, the tribunal determine that it is not

just and equitable in the circumstances for an order to be made under

either section 20C of the 1985 Act or under Schedule 1, para. 5 of the

2002 Act Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 9 December 2025

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

9 [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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).