Tenant Ordered to Pay Landlord's Maintenance Costs
📌 In brief
In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal decided that a tenant must pay the landlord's costs for maintaining the property, including service charges, stationary costs, and legal costs, as specified in the lease agreement.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to pay the landlord's costs for maintaining the property if the lease agreement stipulates such payment.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ruled that the landlord could recover costs from the tenant under the lease agreement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the tenant must pay the landlord's costs for maintaining the property, including service charges, stationary costs, and legal costs, as stipulated in the lease agreement.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference
FY14YM856 CAM/00KF/LSC/2019/0070 Property : [ADDRESS], Southend on Sea, Essex, [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] : 10th March 2020
DETERMINATION
1. The Respondent is liable to pay the Applicant the following sums: a) Service charges of £195 b) Stationary costs of £49.53. c) Costs of £200
2. The claim was transferred from the Southend County Court by [RESPONDENT] on 29th October 2019. The Claim was brought by the landlords seeking recovery of costs of £195 incurred including re-plastering damaged plaster on a rear wall of [ADDRESS] ("The premises"). The Respondent defended the claim in the County Court on the basis that the Applicants had allowed the premises to fall into disrepair and the costs had increased as a result of the delay.
3. This is in effect the Third determination that the Tribunal has had to make on disputes between the parties. A previous claim (CAM/00KF/LSC/2019/0009) was also transferred from the county court. This related to unpaid sums for decorating the front of the premises. A counterclaim brought by the Respondent was also transferred to the Tribunal and dismissed (CAM/00KF/LIS/2019/0020). During the hearing the parties were encouraged in future to seek to mediate their disputes. It is of no benefit to anyone to hold disproportionately expensive hearings in order to resolve minor disputes. The Respondent ought to be aware that she has responsibilities under her lease to contribute to the cost of the maintenance of the building. The Applicants should not have to apply to the Tribunal each time she wants the Respondent to pay her share of the costs. The lease
4. The lease of the premises commenced on 24 June 2003 for a term of 99 years. The term ends on 23rd June 2102. The tenant purchased the lease from [APPELLANT] in 2015. The relevant lease terms are as follows:
2.1. Clause 2 (d) ii under which the lessee is to pay on demand all proper costs and expenses ( including solicitor's costs and surveyor's fees) incurred by the landlord for the purpose of or incidental to the preparation and service of any notice or schedule...
2.2 Clause 2 (k) where the lessee is to contribute and pay on demand as additional rent one half of the costs expenses outgoings and other matters mentioned in the Third Schedule hereto.
2.3 Clause 4 (6) under which the lessor is responsible for redecorating and maintaining the main structure of the building...including without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing doing all painting required to the exterior walls....as often as shall reasonably be required or necessary in the reasonable opinion of the landlord.
2.4 The Third Schedule which includes the expense of maintaining repairing renewing and redecorating as necessary and appropriate the matters referred to in Clause 4(6) above.
Background to the claim 5. On 23rd June 2019 the Applicants wrote to the Respondent notifying her that the render at the rear of the premises needed to be repaired. The Respondent was invited to provide an estimate. She did not do so. The Applicants sought estimates and instructed [APPELLANT] to do the work at a quoted cost of £390. The Applicant sought half of the cost from the Respondent in a letter dated 30th August 2019. The Respondent failed to pay the sum. The Applicant was forced to issue proceedings in the County Court on 3rd September 2019. The Respondent filed a defence on 16th September 2019. District Judge Molineaux stayed the proceedings and transferred them to the Tribunal for a determination of reasonableness and payability on 29th October 2019. The Inspection 6. The property was inspected by the tribunal prior to the hearing. The inspection related to the external area of the property only and in particular to those areas at the rear of the property where the rendering had taken place.
7. The property is a semi-detached late Victorian house converted into two flats located in a relatively central location in Southend-on-Sea within half a mile of the nearest train station and one mile of Southend Central Station and within walking distance of local facilities and amenities.
8. The rendering work at the rear of the premises appeared to be sound.
The decision 9. The Tribunal considers that the work carried out by the landlords was carried out to a satisfactory standard and that the costs incurred are reasonable and recoverable under the lease via the lease terms quoted above.
10. The Tribunal rejects the suggestion by Mr [COUNSEL], acting for the Respondent, that the cost had increased as a result of delays by the Applicants in carrying out essential works. The Applicants have been thwarted in their attempts to carry out maintenance works at the premises because they have no confidence that the Respondent will pay for them.
11. The Tribunal also considers that the Applicant is entitled to recover her stationary costs of preparing for the Tribunal under clause 2 (d) ii of the lease. The landlords were forced to take this action because the tenant had refused to pay her contribution. The sum of £49.53 is a reasonable sum.
12. Finally the Applicant is entitled to recover the costs of having to bring the application in the Tribunal pursuant to Regulation 13 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 S.I. 2013 No. 1169 (£200).
[NAME] 31st March 2020
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Ordered to Pay Service Charges and Associated Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charges for Maintenance and Decoration
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Repayment Order Due to Landlord's HMO Licensing Violation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Critical Heating Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Service Charge Dispute Against Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Unreasonable Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Sum for Enfranchisement with Missing Landlords
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 lease agreement stipulates payment for the landlord's costs.
- Service charges are only payable if validly demanded under the lease terms.
- Tenants have the right to challenge the reasonableness of service charges.
- Critical heating works can bypass statutory consultation requirements.
- Local authorities must consider all evidence when determining financial penalties.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Tenants must pay service charges and administration charges as specified in the lease and applicable statutes.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant must pay the landlord's costs for maintaining the property.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the tenant were involved in the dispute.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant must pay the landlord's costs because the lease agreement stipulates such payment.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Clause 2(d)(ii), Clause 2(k), Clause 4(6), and the Third Schedule of the lease agreement were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the lease agreement clearly stated that the tenant must pay the landlord's costs for maintaining the property.
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 carefully review their lease agreement to understand their obligations regarding property maintenance costs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included letters from the landlord requesting payment and the lease agreement itself.
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 recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving lease agreements and property maintenance costs.
