Tenant Ordered to Pay Service Charges Under Lease Terms

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case reference : LON/00BE/LSC/2024/0052 [NAME] : 2 & 6 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL], solicitor Respondent: [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL], counsel instructed by [RESPONDENT] on behalf of the respondent. 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 Tagliavini Mrs A Flynn MRICS Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 5 December 2024 7 January 2025

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal finds the services disputed by the applicant were

provided to him under the terms of the leases for Flats 2 and 6

Onega Gate for the service charge years 2015 to 2024 inclusive.

(2) The tribunal finds the applicant is liable to pay the sums

demanded by the respondent for the service charge years 2105 to 2024

inclusive (less the amount attributed to the concession made by the

respondent in respect of cleaning to the internal communal areas). (3) No order is made under s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant act 1985 and para.5 of Sch. 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

The [NAME] 1. This is an [NAME] pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act

1985 seeking a determination of the reasonableness of all of the heads of

service charges for the service charge years 2014 to 2024 inclusive. The hearing 2. At the hearing of the [NAME] the applicant was represented by Mr

[COUNSEL], solicitor and the respondent by Mr [COUNSEL] of

counsel. Preliminary matters 3. Although the respondent had indicated it wished to make an [NAME]

to strike out the applicant’s case for a failure to comply with the tribunal’s

directions dated 12 August 2024 (as amended)and any ‘unless order’

made by the tribunal. Mr [RESPONDENT] informed the tribunal that the

respondent no longer wished to proceed with that [NAME] and

consequently, the tribunal did not consider it. 4. The respondent also submitted that the applicant was barred from

disputing the service charge year ending 31 March 2015 due to an earlier

Settlement Agreement dated 1 August 2016 that was made between the

applicant and [RESPONDENT] which had included the service charge year

2014-2015. 5. However, the tribunal’s directions recorded it had determined that the

service charge year 2014-2015 was outside of the tribunal’s jurisdiction

and that the ambit of the current [NAME] was limited to the period

2015 to 2024 (inclusive).

3 6. The respondent also sought to raise whether the applicant should be

permitted to rely on disputing all of the remaining service charge years

to their age and unfairness being caused to the respondent. However,

this issue was not pursued and in any event, the respondent had

demonstrated through its extensive production of documents it was able

to meet and answer the applicant’s challenges to all the service charge

years in dispute. The background 7. The subject properties are located in a former office block converted into

a row of houses. The applicant is the freeholder of 1-6 Onega Gate

and the long leaseholder of Flats 2 and 6 Onega Gate. The

applicant’s leasehold ownership of Flats 2 and 6 is derived from and

subject to the terms of a lease dated (i) 2 September 1988, made between

[COMPANY] (1), [COMPANY] (2), [COMPANY] (3) and [COMPANY] (4) (“the

Flat 2 Lease”) and (ii) 27 May 1988, made between [COMPANY] (1), [COMPANY] (2), [COMPANY] (3) and [RESPONDENT] (4) (“the Flat 6

Lease”). 8. [RESPONDENT] is the named management company in the lease and the

head leasehold owner is [COMPANY]. [COMPANY] is the managing agent instructed by [COMPANY] to manage the development and includes providing/arranging

the provision of services and the demanding and collection of service

charges. The issues 9. In the [NAME] form the applicant asserted that none of the heads of

service charge had been provided by the respondents in the disputed

service charge years and that therefore, no sums were payable. In the

directions dated 12 August 2024, the issues were identified as the

applicant’s liability to pay the sums demanded under the terms of the

lease; whether the service charges are payable by reason of s.20B of the

1985 Act; whether the cost of the works are reasonable. However, in the

applicant’s Statement of Case dated 27 August 2024 and at the hearing

of the [NAME], the applicant repeated and relied upon his original

assertion that ‘[H]e has never received any of the services for which he

has been invoiced.’ Therefore, no sums of service charge or

administration fees are payable. 10. Consequently, the applicant failed to provide a Scott Schedule setting out

for each disputed item in each disputed year, the reasons for the dispute

and the amount he considered reasonable for that disputed item of

service charge and maintained his assertion that no services at all were

provided to him in the 9-year period in dispute. In support of his

4

[NAME] the applicant relied upon the documents he provided to the

tribunal (including photographs), his witness statement dated 27 August

2024 and his oral evidence to the tribunal. Despite the applicant’s failure

to provide a comprehensive schedule on why and in what amount each

item of service charge was disputed these were identified in the

tribunal’s directions as:

Insurance

Electricity

Communal area cleaning

Refuse bins

General repairs

Accountancy and audit fees

Health & Safety

Contribution to Reserves

Maintenance of landscape areas

CCTV maintenance

Bank charges

11. The applicant did not seek to assert that the respondent was not entitled

to provide these services or that the lease did not make provision for this.

However, the respondent conceded at the beginning of the hearing that

the costs of communal cleaning to the subject properties at 2 and 6

Onega Gate should be removed as neither had any communal area for

which cleaning was provided.

12. In his witness statement and oral evidence the applicant asserted that he

had taken out his own insurance for the subject properties; that the lights

in the communal areas had not worked since 2016; no internal or

external communal cleaning was provided; the cost of the refuse bins is

covered by council tax; he has carried out roof repairs across the whole

block; that invoices, accounts and audits are not genuine. 13. The respondent relied upon a hearing bundle of 789 pages and 2

additional bundles which included copies of the relevant leases; the

budgets and accounts for the service charge years in dispute; copies of

the insurance schedules and invoices for works/services; relevant

photographs of the common parts and the demands for payment. The

respondent also relied upon a witness statement of [RESPONDENT],

[NAME] Manager for [COMPANY] dated 25 October 2025

and also gave oral evidence to the tribunal. The tribunal’s decision 14. The tribunal finds the services disputed by the applicant were

Onega Gate. The tribunal finds the applicant is liable to pay the sums

5

inclusive subject to the concession made by the respondent in respect of

internal communal cleaning. The tribunal’s reasons 15. The tribunal found the applicant’s bald assertion that no services at all

have been provided by the respondent over the 9 years in dispute, to be

wholly unconvincing. The tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence on all

of the disputed heads of service charge to be vague, non-specific and

unsupported by the production of any or any persuasive documentary

evidence. 16. The tribunal did not accept the applicant’s assertion that he had been

told by the respondent’s [NAME] manager ‘[RESPONDENT] that he had not

received any services from the respondent. The tribunal also did not

accept the applicant’s assertion that the [NAME] manager was

unresponsive to his complaints as this was undermined by his stated

wish to hire the same [NAME] manager for the management of his own

businesses and the estate inspection reports of this [NAME] manager. 17. The tribunal finds from the extensive documentary evidence relied upon

by the respondent in addition to the oral evidence provided by Ms

[APPELLANT], that the applicant, has on the balance of probabilities been

provided with services under the terms of his leases and for which

payment has been demanded. The tribunal finds the applicant is liable

to pay for these services in accordance with the demands for payment

made albeit subject to the removal of communal cleaning charges as

conceded by the respondent. [NAME] under s.20C and para 5 of Schedule 11 18. The tribunal had regard to the parties oral submissions and its findings

above and determines that in all the circumstances it is not just or

equitable to make an order under either s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant

Act 1985 or para. 5 of Sch. 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Act 2002.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 7 January 2025

6

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] 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 [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [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 [NAME] 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 [NAME] 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).