Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·24 May 2024

Tenant's Service Charge Challenge Struck Out Due to Previous Judgment

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal struck out a tenant's challenge to a service charge because a default judgment had already been entered for the same amount. This means the tenant cannot challenge the service charge in this forum.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant cannot challenge a service charge if a default judgment has been entered for the same amount.

Topics

tenancy disputesservice charges

Provisions

section 27A(4)(c) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the dispute due to a previous default judgment.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear a tenant's challenge to a service charge after a default judgment was entered for the same amount. Judge Amran Vance ruled that the application was struck out under rule 9(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BE/LSC/2021/0205 Property : 19 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : In Person Respondent : [redacted] (“the Landlord”) Representative : [COMPANY] of Application : Liability to pay service charges

DECISION AND ORDER

Background

(1) The Tenant is the lessee of 19 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], and the Applicant is his landlord.

(2) In his application, the Tenant disputes payability of the sum of £10,754.09 for the 2019 service charge year.

(3) In an email dated 17 June 2021, the Respondent Council stated that: (a) the sum challenged by Mr [NAME] in his application to the tribunal was, in part, the subject of a claim issued in the County Court Business Centre by the Council earlier this year; and (b) on 14 May 2021, a Judgment in default was entered by the County Court Business Centre for the full amount claimed, plus costs (£13.049.13). Copies of the claim form, particulars, and Default Judgment have been provided.

(4) By letter from the tribunal dated 18 June 2021, the Tenant was notified that if what the Respondent has stated was correct, then then unless the Default Judgment is set aside, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to

(5) The Tenant responded to that letter in an email dated 30 June 2021 in which he stated: “I am not legally trained so I don’t know much about jurisdictions or who is responsible for what.” He maintained his dispute that the sum was payable.

Decision (6) I am satisfied that the sum of £10,754.09 referred to in this application is included in the sum for which the Council has obtained a default judgment. The sum is specifically referred to in the particulars of claim, following a service charge adjustment on 20 December 2019.

(7) As that default judgment has not been set aside, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application by reason of section 27A(4)(c) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which states as follows:

“No application under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which—

(a)– (b) […….]

(8) The application is therefore struck out under rule 9(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, which specifies that the tribunal must strike out the whole of proceedings if it does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings.

(9) If the Tenant wishes to challenge the sum specified in the Default Judgment, he will need to apply to the County Court for the Default Judgment to be set aside.

(10) The tribunal will now close its file in this matter.

Tribunal judge Judge Amran Vance Date: 2 July 2021

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Struck Out12 cases

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal decided it could not hear the tenant's challenge to the service charge because a default judgment had already been entered.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and their landlord, the London Borough of Southwark.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because a default judgment had already been entered for the same amount.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The court applied section 27A(4)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the default judgment had already determined the payability of the service charge.

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 address any disputes through the appropriate legal channels to avoid jurisdiction issues.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence that mattered included the default judgment and the claim form provided by the landlord.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can often be appealed to a higher court, but the specifics depend on the circumstances.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal disputes.

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.