Tenant Successfully Challenges Service Charges Under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/26UG/LIS/2023/0022 Property : Flat 2, [NAME_1], 4a [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Litigant in Person Respondent : [redacted] Ltd Representative : [NAME_3], [COMPANY_4] (Managing Agents on behalf of [NAME_1] Management Company) Type of application : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Judge Bernadette MacQueen, Roland Thomas, MRICS Venue : St Albans Magistrates Court, The Civic Centre, St Peter's Street St. Albans [POSTCODE] Date of hearing : 11 September 2025 Date of decision : 27 October 2025

DECISION

2 Decisions of the Tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that the sum of £3,063.00 is payable by the Applicant in respect of the service charges for the years 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 and 1 April 2023 to 30 March 2024. (2) The tribunal does not make an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 or paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. (3) The tribunal makes the determinations as set out under the various headings in this Decision. The Application 1. The Applicant sought a determination pursuant to section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) as to the amount of service charge payable by him in respect of the service charge year ends 2016 to 2024.

2. The tribunal made directions dated 18 March 2025 which provided for documents to be exchanged between the parties and an agreed bundle of documents for use at the hearing to be produced by the Applicant. The tribunal had before it a bundle of documents consisting of 424 pages (the Bundle). The Hearing 3. The Applicant appeared in person at the hearing. The Respondent was represented by [NAME_3], employed by [NAME_4] (the Respondent’s managing agent). [NAME_5] and [NAME_6] also attended the hearing on behalf of the Respondent.

4. Neither party requested an inspection and the tribunal did not consider that one was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute. The Background 5. The Applicant was the leaseholder of Flat 2, [NAME_1], 4[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (the Property). The Property was described as a 1 bedroom ground floor flat within a purpose built block of 9 flats.

6. The Applicant was the registered leaseholder of the Property pursuant to a lease dated 26 August 1982 and made between [COMPANY_7] (1), [NAME_1] Management Limited (2) and [NAME_13] (3) (the Lease). A copy of the Lease was at pages 176 to 198 of the Bundle.

7. By Clause 3(3) of the Lease the Lessee covenanted with the Lessor and with the Company : “(3) Punctually to pay the subscription and sums on account thereof in accordance with the provisions of Clause 8 hereof”.

8. Clause 8 of the Lease defined “Total Service Costs” as the aggregate amount of: (a) the sums expended by the Company in performance of its obligations under this Lease the New Lease or any other instruments concerning the Building or the grounds; and

(b) the sums required from time to time by the Company towards any reserve or sinking fund or funds constituted in accordance with sub- clause (6) below of this Clause; …

(2) The share of the Total Service Cost payable by the Lessee to the Company shall be 11.68 per cent thereof (hereinafter called “the Subscription”) payable in accordance with the procedural provisions set out below. Preliminary Issue 9. By application dated 9 September 2025 (two days before the hearing) the Applicant made the following applications on Form Order 1: (i) That the Respondent be barred from proceedings and the issues determined against them pursuant to rules 9(7) and (8) of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (the 2013 Rules). (ii) That the Respondent be debarred from producing any further evidence as the Applicant submitted that this would be produced out of time. Further, the Applicant sought the exclusion of evidence produced in an illegible or incorrect format.

4 (iii) That the tribunal makes a costs order against the Respondent pursuant to rule 13 of the 2013 Rules, and that this order includes costs incurred in a county court claim. (iv) That the tribunal makes an order for the limitation of the Respondent’s costs in these proceedings under section 20c of the 1985 Act. (v) That the tribunal makes an order to extinguish liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs under paragraph 5a of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. (vi) That the Applicant’s application be deemed to extend to and include the financial years 2024/25 and 2025/26 and it also includes an additional issue of access to a stopcock. Tribunal Determinations – Preliminary Issues 10. The tribunal considered the Applicant’s Form Order 1 applications at the start of the hearing. Having heard representations from both parties, the tribunal determined the applications made by the Applicant. The tribunal sets out its reasons in the order they are set out in the paragraph above.

11. The tribunal determined that it would not bar the Respondent from these proceedings. The tribunal had before it the Bundle, which included the Respondent’s documents at section F (pages 377 to 422). Additionally, as set out above, the Respondent had attended the hearing by being represented by [NAME_3], employed by [NAME_4] (the Respondent’s managing agent), [NAME_5] and [NAME_6]. Whilst the Applicant submitted that the Respondent had not completed the Schedule as required by the tribunal directions, the tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent had engaged with proceedings and had co-operated with the tribunal.

12. The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order costs that relate to proceedings in other courts. The tribunal will consider the Applicant’s costs application so far as it relates to these proceedings at the end of this decision.

13. The Applicant had already made an application under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 in his initial application to the tribunal. The tribunal will therefore consider these applications at the end of this decision.

5 14. The tribunal did not allow the Applicant to extend his application to cover service charge year ends 2025 and 2026 and additional issues including access to the stopcock. The tribunal had made directions for the exchange of documents and evidence on the basis of the application before the tribunal. If this application had been allowed, the Respondent would have needed to be afforded time to answer any points raised by the Applicant. This would inevitably have led to delay. Therefore, the tribunal was not prepared to allow the Applicant to include service charge year ends 2025 and 2026. In reaching this decision the tribunal considered rule 3 of the 2013 Rules and in particular rule 3(2)(c) and rule 3(2)(e). Rule 3(2)(c) provides that the tribunal must ensure, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in proceedings and rule 3(2)(e) provides that the tribunal must avoid delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues. Issues Raised in the Schedule which are Outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction 15. The Applicant had completed a Schedule setting out his issues in dispute at pages 93 to 103 of the Bundle. However, the Applicant had raised issues in this Schedule that were beyond the jurisdiction of this tribunal. The tribunal would therefore not consider these issues.

16. Specifically, the Applicant had raised an issue of Annual General Meetings not being held. The tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to this and therefore considered this issue no further.

17. In his Schedule for 2023, the Applicant had made the following comment: “not part of service charges but I claim my costs incurred for unreasonable legal claim and damages”. The tribunal did not consider this matter further as it does not have jurisdiction in relation to costs that are related to proceedings before another court.

18. Further, the tribunal had already determined that it would not consider the service charge year end 2025 as this service charge year was not before the tribunal. The tribunal would therefore not consider the Schedule at page 103 of the Bundle. The Issues In Dispute 19. The issues before the tribunal were therefore those that the Applicant disputed in relation to the payability and/or reasonableness of service charges for service charge year ends 2016 to 2024 as set out in his Schedule (pages 93 to 102 of the Bundle).

6 Relevant Law

20. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides the relevant legislation for the determination of service charges.

21. Section 19 limits the amount of “relevant costs” that can be recovered through a service charge, as follows. “19. Limitation of service charges: reasonableness (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period— (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly”.

22. In relation to “interim” service charges, section 19(2) provides as follows: “(2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise”.

23. Section 20B(1) provides that relevant costs that were incurred more than 18 months before any demand for payment are not payable by a tenant. Section 20B(2) provides: “Subsection (1) shall not apply if, within the period of 18 months beginning with the date when the relevant costs in question were incurred, the tenant was notified in writing that those costs had been incurred and that he would subsequently be required under the terms of his lease to contribute to them by the payment of a service charge.” 24. Section 27A provides: 27A. Liability to pay service charges: jurisdiction (1) An application may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to— (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable,

7 (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made.

Section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 provides:

47. Landlord’s name and address to be contained in demands for rent etc (1) Where any written demand is given to a tenant of premises to which this part applies, the demand must contain the following information, namely— (a) the name and address of the Landlord... (2) Where— (a) a tenant of such premises is given such a demand, but (b) it does not contain any information required to be contained in it by virtue of subsection (1), then (subject to subsection (3)) any part of the amount demanded which consists of a service charge or an administration charge (“the relevant amount”) shall be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before that information is furnished by the landlord by notice given to the tenant.

25. Section 60 defines “landlord” less broadly than in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as simply “the immediate landlord”. Disputed Service Charges – January 2016 to December 2020 26. The Applicant had stated in his Schedule (pages 93 to 98 of the Bundle) that service charges for this period were not payable because valid demands were not made.

27. The Respondent confirmed that they had written off the amount outstanding for this period but added that if the amounts were deemed payable by the tribunal, the Respondent would seek to enforce the payments. The Tribunal’s Decision: January 2016 to December 2020 28. The tribunal finds that the Respondent had written off the service charge amount payable by the Applicant to the Respondent for the period January 2016 to December 2020. In light of this, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to this amount given that it is no longer outstanding.

8 29. The tribunal has reached this decision because at page 316 of the Bundle was a credit note sent by [NAME_4] to the Applicant which stated as follows: “Credit for Handover Balance - £60.34 per month starting January 2016 x 60.” This credit note stated “Total – no payment required” and showed a credit £3,620.40. This credit was for the period of January 2016 for 6o months, namely to December 2020.

30. Further, at page 329 of the Bundle, was an account statement for the Property for the period 1 January 2000 to 9 October 2023. Against the date 9 October 2023, the account was credited with £3,620.40 and the explanation given was “Credit for Handover Balance - £60.34 per month starting January 2016 x60 months”. This amount was then deducted for the total shown on the account.

31. Further, at page 394 of the Bundle was a statement of account for the period 1 January 2000 to 6 November 2024. At 9 October 2023, the account was credited with £3,620.40 and the explanation given was “Credit for Handover Balance - £60.34 per month starting January 2016 x 60 months”. This amount was deducted from the total shown on the account.

32. Although the Respondent told the tribunal that they wished to pursue this amount if they were able to, the documents clearly record that a decision had already been taken to credit this amount to the Applicant’s account.

33. The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider service charges which have already been written off by the Respondent. The tribunal therefore has not considered further the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020 as no amount is payable. Period January 2021 to December 2021 and 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022 34. At page 382 of the Bundle was a copy of the service charge invoice dated 21 June 2022. This included the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 and 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022. The amount demanded for this period was £60.34 per month. For the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 the demand was for £724.oo and for the period 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2023 the demand was for £181.02.

35. The Applicant stated that no payment was due because no demand had been sent to him. It was the Applicant’s position that the demand had been sent to the wrong address as it had been sent to “2 [NAME_1],

9 1-9 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]”. The Applicant told the tribunal that his lease stated the address of his Property was “Flat 2, [NAME_1], [ADDRESS], St Albans, Herts” not “2 [NAME_1], 1-[ADDRESS]”. The Applicant stated that mail addressed to residents at [NAME_1] was only delivered into the main entrance, where anyone had access. If residents were away for an extended period, their mail stayed in the common hallway where it could be tampered with. It was therefore the Applicant’s position that the demand had not been properly served on him.

36. The Respondent told the tribunal that it was their position that the demand had been properly served. The Respondent confirmed that the amount demanded for this period was a monthly amount of £60.34. The Respondent confirmed that [NAME_4] had become the managing agents in October 2021 and were tasked with collecting service charge payments. They confirmed that they had sent demands to the addresses that they had been provided with by the directors, but in order to confirm they had the correct addresses, they had approached all leaseholders using the contact details that they had been provided with to ask leaseholders to provide up to date contact details. The Respondent confirmed that they had not received a response from the Applicant. Tribunal Decision - Period 1 January 2021 to March 2022 37. The tribunal accepts the Applicant’s position that he was not served with a valid demand within the 18 month time period set out in section 20B of the 1985 Act. The tribunal accepts the Applicant’s position that the address on the demand was not sufficiently clear to enable the tribunal to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the demand was served. Period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2024 Valid Demand for Service Charge Year End 2023 and 2024 38. The Applicant submitted that no service charge was payable because the demands and notices were defective. The Applicant further submitted that for the year ending 2023 the claim was now outside the 18 month time limit, and for the year ending 2024, the claim was potentially outside the 18 month time limit. Further, the Applicant submitted that so far as a demand was served, it was not compliant with section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 as it did not contain the landlord’s address, just the managing agent’s ([NAME_4]).

39. The Applicant submitted that the address used by the Respondent to send the demands was not correct and should have included [ADDRESS].

10 40. The Respondent submitted that the demands were properly made. At the request of the Applicant, the Respondent confirmed that the postal address on the demands had been changed to “Flat 2, [NAME_1], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]”. It was the Respondent’s position that [ADDRESS] was not part of the postal address for the Property.

41. The Respondent confirmed that on 25 August 2023, at the Applicant’s request, they had sent a zip folder through “[NAME_9]” of invoices that they had previously posted to the Respondent. On 5 September 2023, the Respondent told the Tribunal that they had received an email from the Applicant stating that the email link had expired. The Respondent stated that on 9 September 2023 they had sent the zip folder of invoices to the Applicant once again. On 13 September 2023, the Respondent stated that they had received confirmation notification that the invoices had been downloaded by the Applicant.

42. The Applicant accepted that he had been sent an email which had a zip file containing these invoices. However, it was the Applicant’s evidence that he had been unable to open this.

43. At pages 298 to 310 of the Bundle the Applicant had produced a copy of his email inbox showing emails that he had received. The Applicant had also included a screen shot of documents he said he had received. However, the tribunal places little weight on these because the contents of the email and the documents were not produced. All the tribunal was able to see were the name of the person sending an email to the Applicant and the title of the email, specifically that on 10 August 2023 there had been an email sent from [NAME_4] that was titled “Your request for copies of all invoices rel”. Tribunal Decision – Demands - Period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2024 44. The tribunal finds that demands were properly made throughout the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2024 and that the costs were not incurred more than 18 months from when a demand for payment of the service charge was served on the tenant. The tribunal reaches this decision because it is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that through a combination of service through email and post, all of the service charges demands were served in time.

45. In terms of the demands served by email, the tribunal accepts the Respondent’s evidence that all of the invoices from [NAME_4] were sent by email to the Applicant at his request on 10 August 2023, and opened by the Applicant on 13 September 2023. The tribunal is therefore satisfied that this means that invoices from 1 April 2022 to 10 August 2023 were served by email within the 18 month time limit.

11 46. Further, the tribunal finds that, from 29 September 2023, the demands were addressed to [NAME_2] at Flat 2, [NAME_1], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (page 326 of the Bundle). The tribunal accepts the Respondent’s position that this address was sufficiently clear for the tribunal to be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the demands were correctly served. The tribunal notes that the Property was described in the Lease as “Flat 2 [NAME_1], [ADDRESS], St Albans, Herts”.

47. The tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s position that the notices were not valid as they were sent care of the managing agent. The notice clearly identified the property and [NAME_4] were appointed as the managing agents to collect the service charge. The Applicant relied on a summary (page 122 of the Bundle) of a previous tribunal case Beitov Properties Limited v Elliston Bently Martin[2012] UKUT 133 to submit that the service charge demand was not valid as it had been sent from [NAME_4] and did not include the name and address of the landlord as required by section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

48. The tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s submission that section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is applicable. Section 60 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 defines landlord as immediate landlord. The Respondent is not the immediate landlord. The Respondent is described in the Lease as: “(c) The Company (of which the lessee has already agreed to become a member) has been formed for the purpose of maintain and managing the Building and its grounds hereinafter provided” 49. The obligation under the Lease was for the Applicant to pay the management company and not the landlord. Section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 therefore has no applicability as the sums in issue were not payable to the landlord and therefore the demand was not a demand for the purposes of section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 given that the Respondent does not satisfy the definition of “landlord” in that Act.

50. In any event, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant had been a former director and company secretary of [NAME_1] Management Company and there can therefore be no doubt that the Applicant was aware of the Respondent’s obligation to collect service charge payments. Items Disputed by the Applicant for the Period 1 April 2022 to March 2024

12 51. Having determined that the Applicant was served with a valid demand for this period, the tribunal considered the specific service charge items that the Applicant disputes. Managing Agent Fee – Year End 2022 and 2023 52. The Applicant submitted that [NAME_4] had been engaged under a long term qualifying agreement and therefore the Respondent should have completed a section 20 consultation process. Further, the Applicant submitted that [NAME_4] had been acting without proper authority and scrutiny. The Applicant stated that he had requested sight of the contract under which [NAME_4] operated, but his request had been denied.

53. The Applicant further submitted that, in any event, the Management Fees of £271.44 for year end 2023 and £271.00 for year end 2024 were not reasonable. The Applicant stated that he was not prepared to pay for managing agent fees at all.

54. The Respondent confirmed that they had been appointed as managing agents in October 2021. The Respondent further confirmed that [NAME_4] had been engaged on a contract for 364 days and it was therefore not a long term agreement. The Respondent confirmed that [NAME_4] carried out a full range of duties including producing service charge demands and accounts as well as day to day management and arranging services such as cleaning, gardening, insurance, health and safety reports and block management. Tribunal Decision – Managing Agent Fee Year End 2022 and 2023 55. The tribunal accepts the Respondent’s evidence that the managing agents were not engaged under a long term contract and therefore the tribunal finds that consultation was not required. Further, the tribunal accepts the Respondent’s position that the directors engaged [NAME_4] to provide a professional managing agent service to ensure that the building was properly managed.

56. The tribunal is satisfied that the amount charged by way of managing agent fees is reasonable. The tribunal accepts the Respondent’s position that [NAME_4] were providing a service that included day to day management, service charge collection and building management.

57. The Applicant did not provide the tribunal with any alternative quotations for managing agent fees. The tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s position that he was unable to provide comparables as he had not been shown the contract under which [NAME_4] were operating. The tribunal accepts the Respondent’s position that they do not have to provide the Applicant with the contract. Further, the Applicant could

13 have approached other managing agents and presented the tribunal with an alternative quotation setting out what the quotation covered. The tribunal notes that the directions made on 18 March 2025 (page 42 of the Bundle) specifically stated that the Applicant should produce any alternative quotations upon which he intended to rely. However, the Applicant did not provide this evidence. Brady Solicitor Fees - £900 58. At page 100 of the Bundle, the Applicant disputed the payment of £900 for solicitor fees. The invoice that related to this amount was at page 366 of the Bundle. The Applicant submitted that the County Court proceedings which had been brought against him for non-payment of service charges were ill-advised, frivolous, vindictive and vexatious and that, therefore, the costs not recoverable. The Applicant included in the Bundle documents relating to these proceedings, including at pages 256 to 263.

59. The Respondent explained they had taken proceedings in the County Court for the recovery of service charge payments that they said were payable by the Applicant. However, ultimately these proceedings were discontinued.

60. The tribunal finds that the amount of £900 is payable. The Tribunal is satisfied that clause 8(c) of the Lease provided that the total service cost included the cost of recovery of any sums due from lessees or occupiers in respect of their contribution to total service costs: 8(1) IN this Lease “the Total Service Cost” means the aggregate amount of the following expenditure of the Company: (a)… (c) the costs of recovery of any sums due from lessees or occupiers of the Building or any part or parts thereof in respect of contribution to the Total Service Costs or payment of ground rent and the costs of the resolution of any disputes connected therewith (whether by arbitration litigation or otherwise)” 61. The Respondent had taken legal advice because the Applicant owed service charges. Whilst the proceedings ultimately resulted in discontinuation, the Respondent was nevertheless entitled to bring these proceedings. The invoice at page 366 showed that the £900 was in relation to Counsel fees and the tribunal finds that this is a reasonable amount for advice provided. [NAME_10] – Year End 2023 and 2024

14 62. The Applicant disputed the amount of £423.40 for year end 2023 and £1,642.40 for year end 2024. The Applicant stated that he had been provided with no explanation for the increase. Additionally, it was the Applicant’s position that he had not been provided with a document that showed how the money would be spent.

63. The Respondent submitted that when the managing company had taken over there was no money in the [NAME_10]. Reserves were needed in order to bring the building up to the required standard. The Respondent confirmed that they had developed a capital expenditure plan which was a five year plan showing the work that was required. In addition, the Respondent stated that [NAME_4] had identified a number of health and safety issues that needed to be addressed. Tribunal Decision – [NAME_10]

64. Clause 8(6) of the Lease provided: (6) The Company may decide to set aside a reserve or sinking fund or funds to meet expected future expenditure on items of repair maintenance or renewal which it is liable to carry out and which occur less frequently than once a year and the Company may require to be included in the Total Service Cost for any period an amount or amounts to be added to such fund or funds calculated in accordance with estimates of the likely date and cost of the relevant expenditure… 65. The tribunal accepts the Respondent’s position that the [NAME_10] was insufficient and therefore it was crucial that the Respondent built up the reserves because of the work that was required for the building. The tribunal was satisfied that [NAME_4] had assessed the work that would be required. The Applicant’s position that he should pay £0 towards the [NAME_10] is not tenable. The Lease provides for a reserve or sinking fund and the Respondent has acted prudently to achieve this. The tribunal therefore accepts the Respondent’s position that the amount they have demanded towards the [NAME_10] is reasonable. Service Charges – Year End 2023 and 2024 66. The Applicant disputed the service charge of £1,391.16 for year end 2023 and £1,563.69 for year end 2024. The Applicant stated that in 2021 the service charge was £60.34 per month but that this increased to £259 per month in 2022, £271.44 per month in 2023 and £271 per month in 2024.

67. However, the Applicant did not identify any specific item he wished to challenge. The Applicant stated that he was unable to identify particular items as he did not have the information. He suggested that 1/3 of the amount currently being charged would be a reasonable amount.

15 However, the Applicant did not provide the tribunal with any explanation as to how he had arrived at this amount.

68. At pages 106 to 107 of the Bundle, the Applicant alleged breaches of covenant by the landlord and at page 363 provided a series of photographs but he did not explain either in his written documents or at the hearing how this impacted on the service charge amounts demanded. Tribunal Decision – Service Charges Year end 2023 and 2024 69. The Applicant did not produce any reason why he was disputing the service charge. The Respondent confirmed (page 378) that they were seeking to bring the building in line with current safety and environmental standards. Specifically, the building did not have emergency lighting and had inadequate fire doors. The Respondent submitted that the service charge had remained unchanged since early in the year 2000. The Respondent confirmed that they had notified all leaseholders of this. The tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent that the increases in service charge amounts were reasonable. The Applicant had not provided any reason for stating that the charges were not reasonable. The tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent and finds the service charges for year end 2023 and 2024 reasonable.

70. The tribunal’s findings will necessitate parties working together to ensure that the Applicant’s service charge account reflects this tribunal decision. For clarity, the tribunal finds the following amounts payable based on the demands it had before it: Period Amount 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022 £362.04 1 October 2022 to 31 December 2022 £349.32 1 October 2022 to 31 December 2022 ([NAME_10]) £73.00 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2023 £349.32 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2023 ([NAME_10]) £73.00

16 1 April 2023 to 30 June 2023 £347.28 1 April 2023 to 30 June 2023 ([NAME_10]) £116.80 1 July 2023 to 30 September 2023 £347.28 1 July 2023 to 30 September 2023 ([NAME_10]) £116.80 1 October 2023 to 31 December 2023 £347.28 1 October 2023 to 31 December 2023 ([NAME_10]) £116.80 1 January 2024 to 31 March 2024 £347.28 1 January 2024 to 31 March 2024 ([NAME_10]) £116.80 Total £3,063

Application under Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 71. Within his application form, the Applicant made an application under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Applicant stated at pages 108 to 109 of the Bundle that the Respondent and their agent had not acted responsibly and that he had suffered significant disruption in these proceedings.

72. The tribunal has found that the Respondent’s demands are payable for the period April 2022 to March 2024. For the period January 2016 to December 2020 the Applicant had already received a credit note from the Respondent to say that this amount was credited to his account, but still raised these service charge years before the tribunal. On the basis of the findings made, the tribunal finds that it is just and equitable not to make an order. Further, and in any event, the Respondent is a

17 management company run by volunteer directors with no resource apart from service charge income. If an order was made, the Applicant would be protected from paying the costs whereas the other leaseholders who did not bring these proceedings would be liable. The tribunal does not find that this would be just and equitable given the findings that the tribunal has made. The tribunal therefore does not make an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. For the same reasons, the tribunal does not make an order under paragraph 5A as the tribunal does not find that it would be just and equitable to make such an order.

73. Further, having heard the submissions from the parties and taking into account the determinations above, the tribunal does not order that the Respondent refund any fees paid by the Applicant. Cost Application 74. The Applicant sought an order for costs under rule 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. In light of the findings made, the tribunal does not make a costs order. The Respondent has not behaved unreasonably and instead has sought to collect service charges to ensure efficient and effective maintenance of the block in which the Property is situated.

Name: Judge Bernadette MacQueen Date: 27 October 2025

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such

18 reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).