Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction Over Freeholder's Rent Charges
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided it couldn't make a ruling on rent charges paid by a freeholder and sent the case back to the County Court.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine rent charges payable by a freeholder.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine rent charges payable by a freeholder, referring the matter back to the County Court.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal determined it had no jurisdiction to decide on rent charges payable by a freeholder, referring the case back to the Chelmsford County Court.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/22UD/LSC/2019/0019 Property : 2 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : None Respondent : [redacted] : None Type of application : Determination of service charges: section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member(s) : Tribunal [NAME] of decision : 1 April 2019
DECISION
Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that it has no jurisdiction in this case as the disputed charges are not service charges but rent charges payable by a freehold owner. (2) The case be transferred back to the Chelmsford County Court.
2 The application 1. This case was sent to the tribunal by an order of Chelmsford County Court dated 7th February 2019 for a determination of what, if any, service charges are due and payable.
2. The application was made under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”). Under that section the tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine the payability of service charges.
3. Section 18 of the Act defines a service charge as “an amount payable by a tenant”. In this case the disputed charges are not payable by a tenant. They are not service charges but rent charges payable by a freehold owner 4. It follows that, as the service charges are levied in respect of freehold premises, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the matter must therefore be referred back to the County Court pursuant to the tribunal’s case management powers under Rule 6 of the Tribunal procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. Name: Tribunal [NAME]: 1 April 2019
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 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) Claimant Successfully Acquires Right to Manage Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found in Breach of Multiple Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Survey Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Boiler Installation Without Full Consulta…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Rent Due to Property Neglect
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy: First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reduces Service Charges for Leaseholders
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation Without Conditi…
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 a rent adjustment based on the property's condition and market comparables.
- Tenants are entitled to reductions in service charges if the costs are unreasonable or not properly incurred.
- A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and there is no prejudice to the tenants.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant failed to demonstrate that the applicant acted unreasonably for entitlement to costs.
- A tenant must comply with the lease requirements regarding flooring.
- A landlord must comply with the terms of an HMO licence to avoid financial penalties.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal decided it had no authority to rule on rent charges paid by a freeholder.
Who was involved?
The case involved a property management company and a freeholder.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because the charges were rent charges, not service charges.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 18 and 27A were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the charges were rent charges, not service charges, was crucial.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider bringing their case to the appropriate court.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence or documents were mentioned in the judgment.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, the decision can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving complex legal issues.
