VadeLab
Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant's Case Returned to County Court Due to Non-Compliance

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal returned a tenant's case to the County Court because the tenant did not follow the court's instructions and missed the hearing.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant must comply with court directions and attend hearings to have their case heard.

Topics

service chargescompliance with court directions

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal returned the case to the County Court due to the claimant's lack of compliance with directions and failure to attend the hearing.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal returned a tenant's case to the County Court after the tenant failed to comply with directions and did not attend the hearing.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

In the FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Tribunal Case reference : LON/00AP/LSC/2024/0107 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondents : [redacted] : In Person Type of application : Transfer from County Court Tribunal : Judge [NAME], CEnvH

Date of Hearing and Further Directions : 19 July 2024 Date of Decision : 17 September 2024

Decision

Decision 1. The Applicant did not comply with any directions of this tribunal to provide documentation and did not attend the hearing listed on 19 July 2024. The tribunal therefore returns this matter to the County Court at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch.

2 Background 2. The Claimant/Applicant issued proceedings in the County Court on 9 September 2022 making the following claims for the period 24 June 2020 – 23 June 2022;

Service Charges £6559.92 Administration Fee £120.00 Administration Fee £280.00 Administration Fee £2100.00 (legal fees)

3. A Defence and Counterclaim (undated) was filed by the Defendants/Respondents. The defence takes a number of issues such as cleaning fees and managing agent’s fees and states that gardening fees were wrongly charged and that some fees had already been paid. The Counterclaim is in respect of charges for cleaning undertaken by the Respondents and amounts to £3,256.00.

4. On 14 March 2024, District Judge Bell made an order transferring the proceedings to the tribunal. The tribunal was to deal with the issue of reasonableness and payability of the Service and Administration Charges. The tribunal would also consider the Counterclaim as it may be a set-off against the payability of the claim.

5. On 20 March 2024 Judge Martyński made Directions which required parties to exchange evidence and the matter was listed for a final hearing on 19 July 2024. In particular, the Directions required the Applicant by 5 April 2024 to deliver (by email) to the Respondent: [redacted] b. Service charge accounts for the period in issue c. Copies of relevant invoices (including the demands for each Administration Charge claimed)

6. Despite the tribunal contacting the Applicant’s representative, the Applicant did not comply with the Directions and did not provide any explanation to the tribunal as to why the Directions were not complied with.

7. The Applicant did not attend the final hearing on 19 July 2024 and did not provide the tribunal with any explanation. 8. [NAME] attended the hearing on behalf of the Respondents and confirmed that he had not been sent any documentation by the Applicant as required by the Directions and had not had any further contact.

Further Direction Made by the Tribunal

3 9. On 19 July 2024 the tribunal made a further direction that the Applicant’s [NAME] shall by 4pm on 5 August 2024 explain by email to this tribunal why the Directions made on 20 March 2024 had not been complied with. However, the tribunal has received no reply.

10. The tribunal therefore returns this case to the County Court in light of the lack of engagement from the Applicant. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over county court costs and fees, and therefore returns the matter back to Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court to make any further orders.

Tribunal Judge MacQueen

17 September 2024

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The application was not made within the required time frame.
  • The tenant did not comply with the court directions.
  • The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the case due to procedural issues.
  • The matter had already been decided against the tenant in a previous court proceeding.
  • The application was submitted outside the specified legal framework.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The case was struck out because the applicant did not comply with the tribunal's directions and did not attend the hearing.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about service charges and administration fees claimed by the applicant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to strike out the case because the applicant did not provide the required documentation and did not attend the hearing.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were applied since the case was struck out due to procedural issues.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the applicant's failure to comply with the tribunal's directions and attend the hearing.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, it means that compliance with tribunal directions and attending hearings is crucial to avoid having their case struck out.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.