Tenant Withdraws Service Charge Applications in First-tier Tribunal
📌 In brief
A tenant tried to challenge service charges and leasehold breaches but later withdrew her applications because she didn't have the right to make such claims.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant cannot bring an application under section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 if only a landlord can make such an application.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant withdrew her applications regarding service charges and leasehold breaches.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tenant applied for the determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges and sought an order under section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. However, the tenant withdrew these applications due to the lack of jurisdiction.
📚 Full judgment Official document
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME])
Case Reference
:
CHI/29UQ/LSC/2024/0136 & CHI/29UQ/LBC/2024/0014
[NAME]
:
52A The Pantiles, Tunbridge Wells, [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
:
Mr [COUNSEL], [NAME] Director of [RESPONDENT[COMPANY] of Application
:
Determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges Section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Tribunal Members
:
Judge Gethin Regional Judge [NAME] of Decision
:
13 June 2025
DECISION
2 Decision of the Tribunal
1. On 22 May 2025, the Applicant notified the Tribunal that the parties had reached agreement.
2. At the hearing, the Applicant applied orally to withdraw the outstanding applications for determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges for the year 2024 under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as well as orders pursuant to Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Tribunal consented to this withdrawal (Rule 22(1)(a) and (3) Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013).
3. The Tribunal will notify parties of this withdrawal by arranging for a copy of this decision to be sent to the parties (Rule 22(7) Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013).
Background
4. The Applicant has made an application for determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges for the year 2024 and refers to issues in relation to cladding that was undertaken at the [NAME].
5. The Applicant also seeks an Order under S168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that the Respondent has breached covenants in its lease.
6. Both applications were made on 1 August 2024.
7. The Applicant is the lessee of the [NAME]. Only a lessor (landlord) and can make an application under section 168(4). At the Case Management and Dispute Resolution Hearing held on 26 February 2025 at which the Applicant and Mr [COUNSEL], as the Respondent Company’s representative, attended, the Applicant accepted that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to deal with her application under S168(4).
8. The Applicant further seeks orders pursuant to Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
The Hearing
9. [APPELLANT] appeared in person as the Applicant.
3
10. Mr [APPELLANT], [NAME] Director of [RESPONDENT[COMPANY], appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Ms [RESPONDENT] [NAME], Executive Operations Manager attended alongside [NAME].
11. The Tribunal had before it a bundle of documents totalling 297 pages (the Bundle) which was provided by the Respondent.
12. At the outset of the hearing, and further to her email to the Tribunal dated 22 May 2025, the Applicant confirmed that she wished to withdraw her outstanding applications. The Respondent confirmed their agreement to the withdrawal.
13. The Tribunal confirmed it agreed to the withdrawal.
14. The Tribunal’s involvement in this matter was therefore at an end.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
15. By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.
16. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL].
17. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Tribunal (Southern Region) within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
18. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
19. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the [NAME] and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Ordered to Pay Landlord's Costs in Right to Manage Application
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Lease Breaches
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Cladding Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Obtains Right to Manage Property Despite Procedural I…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Works Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Designates Management Company as Principal Accountable …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freehold Purchase Sum Set at £1 Due to Untraceable Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Remediation Works Approved Without Prior Consultation
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 applicant agreed to withdraw the application under Section 168(4) as only a landlord can make such an application.
- Both parties agreed to the withdrawal of outstanding applications, including those related to service charges and liability.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant's attempt to apply under section 168(4) was rejected because it is not within their jurisdiction to do so.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant withdrew her applications regarding service charges and leasehold breaches.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord's representative were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court allowed the withdrawal because the tenant lacked the necessary jurisdiction to make the claims.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the tenant's lack of jurisdiction to make the claims.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the withdrawal of the applications.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have the proper jurisdiction before bringing such claims.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence or documents are mentioned as being critical to the decision.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Generally, decisions can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal, but permission must be sought.
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 complex legal issues.
