Tenant Successfully Challenges Administration Charges for Ground Rent Collection
📌 In brief
In a recent case, a tenant successfully challenged administration charges for ground rent collection. The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the landlord cannot charge these fees without providing a summary of rights and observations. This decision highlights the importance of landlords adhering to statutory requirements when charging tenants.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not liable to pay administration charges for collecting ground rent if no summary of rights and observations is provided with the demand.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ruled that the landlord cannot charge administration fees for collecting ground rent without providing a summary of rights and observations.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that a tenant is not liable to pay administration charges for collecting ground rent if no summary of rights and observations is provided with the demand. The decision was based on the lack of compliance with statutory requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
HAV/00HP/LVA/2024/0500
Property
:
[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
Respondent: [redacted]
:
[RESPONDENT] of Application
:
Determination as to liability to pay an administration charge Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
Tribunal Member
:
Regional Tribunal Judge Whitney
Date of Decision
:
30 April 2025
FINAL DECISION
2
1. The Applicant made an application for determination as to the liability to pay administration charges. The application was received on 14 August 2024.
2. The Applicant further sought orders pursuant to Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
3. This application relates to 3 administration charges of £60.00 paid to the Respondent which is stated to be administration charges for rent collection which was added to the annual ground rent.
4. Directions were issued on 12 February 2025 setting down the application for a case management and dispute resolution hearing on 9 April 2025.
5. The Applicant was in attendance at the hearing. The Respondent did not attend and did not contact the Tribunal prior to the hearing to request an adjournment or provide a reason for its non-attendance.
6. The Applicant confirmed that a statutory ground rent demand was served. The invoice which included the fee for collecting the ground rent did not include any summary of rights and observations.
7. The Applicant had filed a detailed positions statement and attachments. These were sent to the Respondent. These included an email from Mrs [RESPONDENT] dated 4 June 2024 which referred to clause “4 12 9” of the lease as the authority for the charge. I presume she was referring to clause 4.1.2(p) of the lease. This states:
“(p) To employ at the discretion of the Landlord a surveyor accountant or other individual firm or company in connection with the surveying or accounting functions or the management of the [NAME] and (in the entire discretion of the Landlord) to appoint managing agents in connection with the management of the [NAME] collection of Service Charge and performance of the Services and any other duties in or about the [NAME] or any part of it including the general management administration security maintenance protection and cleanliness of the [NAME] and to pay the proper fees of such persons”
Further the Applicant provided copies of various Tribunal decisions upon which he relied.
8. I issued a preliminary decision dated 9th April 2025. I directed that if any party wished to make representations they could do so by 24th April 2025. This decision was sent to the Respondent.
9. No representations were received. I make a final decision.
3
Decision
10. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s arguments and is satisfied that the Respondent is not entitled to recover the administration charges which are the subject of this application as no summary of rights was provided with the demand that was sent. Further I accept the submissions of the Tribunal that even if a summary was attached the clause relied on under the lease does not allow recovery of a fee for collecting ground rent. This clause relates to service charges and I take account of the various decisions to which I am referred, whilst not binding upon me, I accept that the Respondent is not entitled to charge a fee to the leaseholder for demanding and collecting the ground rent due under the lease. Any expense incurred is an expense for the Respondent to bear out of its ground rent income.
11. I determine that the Applicant is not liable to pay the three demands of £60 and that such monies as have been paid should be refunded.
12. Further I make an order pursuant to Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and in addition, order that within 28 days of the issue of this Decision, the Respondent shall reimburse the Applicant’s application fee of £100.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL 1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL]
2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Call System Upgrade Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Against Ground Rent Collection Fees
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal rules against landlord's administration charge
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reviews Pitch Fee Increase Based on CPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Entitled to New Lease Under Statutory Costs Determination
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Liability for Tenant
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Invalidates Service Charges for Non-Compliance
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charges Not Fully Payable Due to Calculation Discrepancies
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Awarded Compensation for Property Encroachments
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 administration charge is not reasonable if it is based on incorrect information.
- Service charges and administration charges must be reasonable and validly demanded.
- Tenants are entitled to compensation for encroachments on their property.
- A tenant is entitled to a new lease under section 91 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.
- Service charges are not payable if demands do not comply with sections 47 and 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ruled that the tenant is not liable to pay administration charges for collecting ground rent.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant and a landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord cannot charge administration fees for collecting ground rent without providing a summary of rights and observations.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord failed to provide a summary of rights and observations with the demand.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that their landlord provides a summary of rights and observations when charging administration fees.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included the lease agreement and previous Tribunal decisions.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property law.
