VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Successfully Challenges Administration Charges Imposed by Landlord

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant successfully challenged administration charges imposed by the landlord because there was no agreement in the lease allowing the landlord to charge such fees. The decision was made by Judge D Jackson in the First-tier Tribunal.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to challenge administration charges if there is no contractual basis for such charges.

Topics

administration chargesleasehold reformproperty law

Provisions

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Schedule 11Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20C

📖 Technical summary

The claimant successfully challenged administration charges imposed by the landlord.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the tenant was under no liability to pay administration charges imposed by the landlord, as there was no contractual basis for such charges.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: BIR/41UK/LAC/2020/0003 - 0005

Property

: 7 [NAME], Tamworth [POSTCODE] (1) 19 [NAME], Pelsall [POSTCODE] (2) 37 [NAME], Pelasll [POSTCODE] (3)

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002)

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

2 1. By applications dated 6th November 2020 the Applicant has made application under Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 for a determination as to liability to pay the following administration charges:

(1) £288 – demand dated 14th February 2020 (57 [NAME]) (2) £234 – demand dated 22nd May 2020 (19 [NAME]) (3) £234 – demand dated 22nd May 2020 (37 [NAME])

2. The Applicant has also applied for an Order under s20C of the 1985 Act (Limitation of service charges: costs of proceedings) and for an Order under Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act (Limitation of administration charges: costs of proceedings).

3. On 11th November 2020 I issued Directions. On 3rd December 2020 the Tribunal extended time for the Respondent to comply with Directions until 11th December and consequently extended time for the Applicant to comply until 13th January 2021.

4. I have considered Statement of Case of the Respondent dated 9th December 2020. At paragraph 3 the Respondent invites the Tribunal to make “an order that the Applicant is under no liability to pay any Administration Charges to the Respondent”.

5. At paragraph 10 of Statement of Case of the Applicant dated 12th January 2021 the Applicant relies on the invitation made by the Respondent.

6.

Accordingly, at the invitation of both parties I make the determination sought by the Applicant pursuant to paragraph 5 of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 7. There remain outstanding applications under Section 20C and Paragraph 5A. At paragraph 4 of Statement of Case of the Respondent it is conceded that “no service charge is payable by the Applicant under any of the 3 relevant leases to the Respondent”. At paragraph 5 the Respondent further concedes “there is no contractual provision in the 3 leases for the Respondent to be entitled to receive from the Applicant any administration charge in respect of litigation costs.” 8. It may be that those concessions, particularly as they are now incorporated into a written Decision of the Tribunal, are sufficient comfort for the Applicant. However, if the Applicant wishes the Tribunal to proceed to consider her outstanding application she must notify the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of issue of this Decision failing which her section 20C and Paragraph 5A applications will be marked as withdrawn.

Decision

9. The Applicant is under no liability to pay any Administration Charges to the Respondent.

D Jackson Judge of the First-tier Tribunal

Either party may appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) but must first apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission. Any application for permission must be in writing, stating grounds relied upon, and be received by the First-tier Tribunal no later than 28 days after the Tribunal sends this written Decision to the party seeking permission.

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: BIR/41UK/LAC/2020/0003 - 0005

Property

Applicant: [redacted]

Date of Decision : 19th January 2021 ([NAME] 10th March 2021)

Addendum DECISION

2

1. By applications dated 6th November 2020 the Applicant has made application under Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 for a determination as to liability to pay the following administration charges:

6.

Decision

D Jackson Judge of the First-tier Tribunal

3

Addendum

1. Pursuant to paragraph 8 above on 29th January 2021 [NAME] have requested a determination under section 20C and Paragraph 5A.

2. On 10th February 2021 the Tribunal wrote to the parties inviting written representations. No representations have been received from either party.

3. Pursuant to section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 I order that all costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the Respondent landlord in connection with these proceedings are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the [NAME].

4. Pursuant to Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 I order that the [NAME]’s liability to pay any administration charge in respect of litigation costs incurred or to be incurred by the Respondent landlord in connection with these proceedings be extinguished.

D Jackson Judge of the First-tier Tribunal

📊 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 accepted

  • The respondent conceded that no service charge was payable under the leases.
  • The respondent conceded there was no contractual basis for administration charges related to litigation costs.
  • The tribunal ordered that the landlord's litigation costs cannot be included in service charges.
  • The tribunal ordered that the tenant's liability for administration charges for litigation costs is extinguished.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tenant was found to be under no liability to pay administration charges imposed by the landlord.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the tenant because there was no contractual basis for the administration charges in the lease agreement.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the lease agreement did not provide a basis for the landlord to impose administration charges.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should review their lease agreement to determine whether there is a basis for administration charges.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Statements of case from both parties were important in making the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party may appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) but must first apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission.

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 property law.

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.