Tenant Loses Challenge to Service Charges in First-tier Tribunal
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed a tenant's challenge to service charges because the tenant did not provide a strong argument against the charges. The court ruled that the tenant must pay the service charges.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant cannot challenge service charges if they fail to provide a substantive argument.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the tenant's challenge to service charges.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed a tenant's challenge to service charges, ruling that the tenant had failed to provide a substantive argument regarding the payability and reasonableness of the charges.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
[NAME]
(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
: BIR/00FK/LIS/2019/0053
BIR/00FK/LLD/2019/0013
BIR/00FK/LLC/2019/0014
Court Reference : F9QZ34T3 (County Court at Derby)
Property
: 1 [NAME], 100 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant/
: [NAME] (Derby) [APPELLANT]
Respondent/
: Mr [RESPONDENT] Defendant
Application : Service Charges on Transfer from the County Court at Derby by Order of Deputy District Judge Davies
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
2 Facts
On 3rd December 2019 I directed that “the Respondent must prepare a Statement of Case setting out all matters of fact and law relied upon. The Respondent must exhibit a paginated bundle of all documents relied upon.”
I have now considered the Respondent’s Statement which runs to 5 brief paragraphs notwithstanding a request for an extension of time “to collect the associated files from my accountant” and reference to “checks being made against the applicant’s costs”.
The Respondent’s case is: “At present, I consider that these costs are excessive, resulting in a higher than necessary apportionment of costs being set against my flat”.
Clause 1.11 of the Lease dated 19th March 2007 and made between [COMPANY] (1) [NAME] (Derby) [COMPANY] (2) and [NAME] and [NAME] (3) provides that “the Lessee’s Proportion” means “1/6th of the Maintenance Expenses”. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to alter that fixed proportion.
The Applicant has produced a Statement of Case and Bundle running to 100 pages. The Bundle contains abbreviated accounts for all years together with expenditure schedule and supporting invoices.
Despite being directed to set out “all matters of fact and law relied upon” the Respondent has failed to advance any challenge whatsoever as to the payability and reasonableness of a single item of service charge expenditure.
On 19th February 2020 I issued Directions in the following terms:
“Under Rules 9(3)(e), 9(7)(a) and 9(8) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 the Tribunal considers that the Respondent’s case has no reasonable prospects of succeeding.
The Tribunal proposes to bar the Respondent from taking further part in proceedings and to summarily determine the claim in the sum of £1310 together with costs and interest against him.
Under Rule 9(4) the Respondent is given the opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed barring and summary determination. Any representations must be made in writing, copied to the Applicant and be received by the Tribunal no later than 4 p.m. on 5th March 2020.”
No representations have been received from the Respondent.
3 Decision
1. The Respondent’s case has no reasonable prospects of succeeding and accordingly under Rule 9 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 the Respondent is barred from taking further part in these proceedings.
2. I summarily determine that the sum of £1310 together with costs and interest is payable by the Respondent to the Applicant.
3. No Orders are made under Section 20C of the 1985 Act or under Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act.
4. Under section 176A(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 I will, within the next 28 days, sitting as a Judge of the County Court give effect to my determination in an Order of the County Court.
5. The hearing fixed for 9th April 2020 is vacated.
D Jackson Judge of the First-tier Tribunal 6th March 2020
Either party may appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) but must first apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission. Any application for permission must be in writing, stating grounds relied upon, and be received by the First-tier Tribunal no later than 28 days after the Tribunal sends this written Decision to the party seeking permission.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Loses Challenge to Service Charges in First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Challenge to Service Charges Dismissed by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Upholds Conditions for HMO Licence
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Dismisses Invalid Service Charge Claims
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Service Charge Challenge Dismissed Due to Lack of Payment Demand
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Challenge to Service Charges for Major Works Dismissed
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Loses Service Charge Challenge, Ordered to Pay Legal Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Challenge to Service Charges Dismissed
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Service Charge Challenge Rejected Due to Insufficient Evidence
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Notice of Emergency Remedial Action Properly Serv…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Loses Challenge to Service Charges in First-tier Tribunal
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 applicant provided a detailed statement of case and a bundle of documents to support their claim.
- The lease agreement specified a fixed proportion for the lessee's maintenance expenses, which the tribunal could not change.
- The tribunal determined that the respondent's case had no reasonable prospect of succeeding.
- The respondent failed to make any representations after being given an opportunity to do so.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The respondent's statement of case was brief and lacked substantive arguments.
- The respondent failed to challenge the payability or reasonableness of any specific service charge expenditure.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The court decided to dismiss the tenant's challenge to service charges.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant challenging service charges imposed by a management company.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the challenge because the tenant failed to provide a substantive argument against the charges.
Which laws or rules were applied?
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 the failure of the tenant to provide a substantive argument against the service charges.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they provide a strong argument if they wish to challenge service charges.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents provided by the tenant were insufficient to support their challenge.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, either party may appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) but must first apply for permission.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
