Tenant Wins Service Charge Dispute Against Landlord
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that certain service charges were not payable because the landlord failed to ask for payment within 18 months of incurring the costs, as required by law.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to have service charges incurred more than 18 months ago deemed non-payable if the landlord fails to demand payment within that timeframe.
📖 What the law says
If the costs used to calculate a service charge were incurred more than 18 months before the landlord serves a demand for payment to the tenant, the tenant is not required to pay that portion of the service charge. However, this limitation does not apply if the tenant was previously notified in writing within 18 months of the costs being incurred that they would need to contribute to these costs through a service charge.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal ruled that certain service charges were not payable due to the landlord's failure to demand payment within 18 months of incurring the costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that service charges incurred in 2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2019/2020 were not payable due to the landlord's failure to demand payment within 18 months of incurring the costs, as per section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AW/LSC/2021/0340 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio)
P: PAPERREMOTE Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In person Respondent : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] of application : Service charges – section 27A [NAME] 1985 Tribunal member(s) : Judge [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 9 March 2022
DECISION
Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face-to- face hearing was not held because all issues could be determined in a remote on paper. The documents that the Tribunal were referred to are in a bundle of 69 pages, the contents of which have been considered.
2 The tribunal’s summary decision (1) The tribunal finds that the charges incurred in respect of the
service charge years 2014/2015; 2015/2016; 2016/2017;
2017/2018 and 2019/2020 have not been demanded within
18 months of having been incurred. Therefore, these charges
are not payable by the applicant lessee to the respondent
landlord pursuant to section 20B of the [NAME] 1985. Therefore, any sums paid the applicant in
respect of these service charges should be re-allocated for
service charges incurred after the service charge year 2019/20 and credited to the applicant’s account. (2) The tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the
[NAME] and under paragraph 5A of Schedule
11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. _________________________________________________ The application 1. This is an application made section 27A of the [NAME]
1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) seeking the tribunal’s determination as to the
applicant lessee’s liability to pay services charges for the years 2014/15;
2015/16; 2016/17; 2017/18; 2018/19 and 2019/2020. Background 2. The applicant is the long lessee of premises situate at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the premises’) under a lease dated 24 August 1995 made between 251 [COMPANY] and [NAME] for a term of 125 years with effect from 24 June 1995. The applicant’s case 3. The applicant asserts that the respondent has failed to make demands
for the payment of service charges within 18 months of having been
incurred and therefore, they are not payable pursuant to section 20B of
the [NAME] 1985. 4. The applicant asserts that the respondent has admitted through its
agent(s) its failure to make timely demands for service charges and relies upon telephone and documentary correspondence to this effect. This
includes a demand for payment of service charges for the period 1/04/
2016 -31/03/2021 in the sum of £4,564.80 and corrected in a demand
dated 06/11/2020 for service charges for the period 01/04/2013-
3
31/03/2015, in the sum of £1,985.42, although subsequently the
respondent conceded that service charges for 2013/14 were ‘ forgone’. 5. The appellant subsequently paid £1,000 towards the service charges
alleged to be due for the period 2020/2021 although the respondent
purported to allocate these to service charges said to be due for the
period 2014/15. The respondent’s case 6. The respondent failed to provide any Statement of Case in Response,
witness statements or any other documents despite having been required to do so in the tribunal’s Directions dated 14 October 2021. The tribunal’s decision and reasons 7. The tribunal finds that the respondent has failed and has admitted
failing to demand service charges from the applicant for the years
2014/15; 2015/2016; 2016/17; 2017/18; 2018/19 and 2019/20
within 18 months of having been incurred. The tribunal finds therefore
the sums incurred in these service charge years and therefore, are not
payable by the applicant., 8. Section 20B of the [NAME] 1985 states:
(1)If any of the relevant costs taken into account in determining
the amount of any service charge were incurred more than
18 months before a demand for payment of the service
charge is served on the tenant, then (subject to subsection
(2) ), the tenant shall not be liable to pay so much of the
service charge as reflects the costs so incurred.
(2)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.
9. The tribunal finds that the respondent and its managing agents appear
to be unaware of the provisions of this section and without justification
made unreasonable demands for the applicant to pay these outstanding
sums and made unmerited threats to forfeit the applicant’s lease.
4 10. The tribunal also makes and order under section 20C of the [NAME] 1985 so that none of the respondent’s cost can be added
to the service charges and also makes an order under paragraph 5A of
schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
extinguishing the applicant’s liability (if any) to pay any of the
respondent’s costs/administration charges of or associated with this
application.
Name: Judge Tagliavini
Date: 9 March 2022
ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL
Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions
1. A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.
2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.
3. 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.
4. The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers
5. Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Unreasonable Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal rules on service charge disputes
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Right to Annual Certified Accounts and No Reserve Funds
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Statutory Lease Extension
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Local Council Obtains Dispensation for Urgent Water Main Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Repairs to Prevent Damage
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Tenant Consulta…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Must Maintain Unsafe Fire Escape Stairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Reasonable Service Charges for Buildings Ins…
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
- Tenants can challenge the reasonableness of service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
- Landlords must maintain and replace unsafe common parts of a building, with tenants contributing to costs.
- Tenants are entitled to refuse payment of service charges if the landlord fails to provide reasonable services.
- Service charges must be reasonable according to market comparables and previous decisions.
- Tenants are entitled to receive annual certified accounts from the landlord and are not obligated to pay interim service charges without a proper estimate.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ruled that certain service charges were not payable because the landlord failed to demand payment within 18 months of incurring the costs.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant and a landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the service charges were not payable because the landlord failed to demand payment within the legal timeframe.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The court applied sections 20B and 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the landlord failed to demand payment for the service charges within 18 months of incurring the costs.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be able to avoid paying service charges if the landlord failed to demand payment within the legal timeframe.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included documentation showing the landlord's failure to demand payment within 18 months of incurring the costs.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to a higher court within 28 days of receiving the decision.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving service charges and landlord-tenant disputes.
