Tenant Successfully Challenges Administration Charges Levied by Landlord
📌 In brief
A tenant successfully challenged administration charges levied by the landlord in a First-tier Tribunal hearing. The decision was based on the lack of a contractual basis for the charges.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to challenge administration charges levied by the landlord if there is no contractual basis for such charges.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully challenged administration charges levied by the landlord.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tenant challenged administration charges levied by the landlord under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the tenant was under no liability to pay the administration charges 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rules Tenant Not Liable for £756 in Administration Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Administration Charges Imposed by Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £1,365 Reasonable Administration Charges for Assured Tenancy …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Case Against Unjustified Administration Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Ordered to Pay £803.50 in Administration Costs for Unpaid Service Ch…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Three-Year Buildings Insurance …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Reasonable Service Charges for Leaseholders in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repair Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Invalid Administration Charges in First-tier…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Concrete Repairs Without Consultatio…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £4,375 price for freehold acquisition of semi-detached bungal…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Acquires Freehold Interest Under Leasehold Reform Act
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 tenant is entitled to challenge administration charges if there is no contractual basis for such charges.
- Service charges are considered reasonable and payable if they are for necessary repairs and maintenance.
- Tenants can challenge administration charges if the landlord cannot provide a valid explanation for them.
- Landlords may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and won't cause harm to leaseholders.
- Tenants have the right to acquire the freehold interest in their property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No significant factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.
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 claimant is under no liability to pay administration charges to the respondent, specifically regarding litigation costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant had to pay administration charges related to litigation costs.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant is under no liability to pay the administration charges because there were no contractual provisions in the leases allowing such charges.
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 the absence of contractual provisions in the leases allowing the respondent to charge administration costs for litigation.
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?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that they might not have to pay administration charges related to litigation costs if there are no contractual provisions in their leases.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the leases and the lack of contractual provisions allowing administration charges for litigation costs.
