Tenant Successfully Challenges Unreasonable Insurance Charges
📌 In brief
A tenant successfully challenged the reasonableness of insurance charges imposed by the landlord. The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the charges were too high and set a new charge amount.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to challenge the reasonableness of insurance charges imposed by the landlord under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal found the insurance charges imposed by the landlord were unreasonable and set a new amount.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tenant challenged the reasonableness of insurance charges imposed by the landlord. The tribunal determined that the charges were unreasonable and set a new charge amount of £750 per property per year.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case reference : LON/00BJ/LSC/2024/0038 Property : 44A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Respondent : [redacted]
Type of application: Service Charges (section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985)
Tribunal : Judge Shepherd Date of decision : 20th May 2024
DETERMINATION
1. The Applicant, [APPELLANT] “ The Applicant”) is challenging the reasonablesness of insurance charges. He is the leaseholder of premises at 44A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“The premises”). The freeholder of the premises is [APPELLANT] (“The Respondent”).
2. Under the Applicant’s lease the Respondent can charge for buildings insurance provided to the premises. The Respondent has used [RESPONDENT]. The cost of the insurance provided is £3,248.54 per annum. This policy is for 2 properties: 44 and 44A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. The cost for [ADDRESS] is therefore £1,624.27 per annum. The Applicant says this cost is unreasonable. He has obtained comparator quotes including one from [NAME] for £1834.39. This appears particularly comprehensive. There is also a quote from [NAME] for a policy costing £1197.28.
3. Unfortunately, the Respondent has chosen not to engage with these proceedings for whatever reason. This means that we neither have their full insurance details or their justification for the premium paid.
4. On its face the premium appears high. I consider that a more reasonable amount would be £1500 per annum or £750 per property. Accordingly, I determine that this is the amount that the Respondent should have charged for the years 2022/23 and 2023/24.
5. I also exercise my discretion under s.20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, this precludes the Respondent from seeking to recover any costs of responding to this application from the service charge. Finally, I order the Respondent to pay the Applicant the application fee of £100.
Judge Shepherd
20th May 2024
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 should be made
3
on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp- pta-application-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands- chamber 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 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).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Orders RTM Company to Pay Landlord's Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Waste Pump Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £11,100 Dispensation for Urgent Cast Iron Pipe Repairs in K…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Alarm Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £245.76 Weekly Rent for Assured Tenancy in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Appoints Manager for Property with Maintenance Issues
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £965/Month Fair Rent for Assured Tenancy in Central London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £4,600+VAT Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs in London F…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £779.50 Fair Rent for Assured Tenancy in Brixton
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 the reasonableness of insurance charges.
- Tenants can have a manager appointed if there are maintenance issues.
- Service charges must be limited to reasonable costs.
- Landlords can get dispensation for urgent works without causing prejudice.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A fair rent must be determined by considering the market rent, but was dismissed in this instance.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal allowed the tenant's challenge to the reasonableness of insurance charges, reducing the annual charge to £750 per property.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the reasonableness of insurance charges levied by the landlord on the tenant's property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the insurance charges were unreasonable, setting a new annual charge of £750 per property because the original charges appeared high compared to comparator quotes.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant argued that the insurance charges were unreasonable, providing comparator quotes to support their claim.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can challenge the reasonableness of insurance charges if they believe the charges are unreasonable.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Comparator quotes from other insurance providers mattered in this case.
