Tribunal Partially Allows Service Charge Challenge for Flat in Enfield

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AK/LSC/2025/0644 Property : 37B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] : I/P Respondent : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL], counsel 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 Tagliavini Mr S Johnson MRICS Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 28 August 2025 14 September 2025

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that the cost of the guttering works are not

reasonable and not payable by the applicant. (2) the management fee for 2023 and 2023 is reduced to £140 per annum. (2) The tribunal determines that all other service charges incurred in the

years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 (estimated) are reasonable and

payable by the applicant. (3) The tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the Landlord

and Tenant Act 1985, so that none of the landlord’s costs of the tribunal

proceedings may be passed to the lessees through any service charge. (4) The tribunal makes an order under para. 5A of Schedule 11 of the

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. _____________________________________________________ The application 1. The applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord

and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act and Schedule 11 to the Commonhold

and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) as to the amount of

service charges and where applicable) administration charges payable

by the applicants in respect of the payability and reasonableness of the

service charge year ending 31st December 2023; 2024 and 2025

(estimated) in the sum of £3,040. The Property 2. The subject property at [ADDRESS], Enfield EN2

8EB(‘the flat’) comprises a 1 bed ground floor flat in a converted

Edwardian house consisting of four flats.

3. The applicant holds a long lease of their respective flat which requires

the landlord to provide services and the tenant to contribute towards

their costs by way of a variable service charge. The specific provisions of

the lease and will be referred to below, where appropriate. The hearing 4. The applicant represented herself and the respondent was represented

by Mr [COUNSEL] of counsel. The tribunal also heard evidence from the

applicant and from Mr [APPELLANT] of [NAME]

3

for the respondent. The tribunal was also provided with a 215 page digital

bundle on which both parties relied.

The issues 5. At the start of the hearing the parties identified the relevant issues for

determination as follows: (i) The payability and/or reasonableness of service charges for 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 including the cost of external works. The heads of service charge challenged were: 2023: Health & Safety; repairs and maintenance; external repairs; management fee; accountancy fees. 2024: Health & Safety; repairs and maintenance; management fee; cleaning; external repairs; and accountancy fees. 2025: No details provided.

6. The applicant asserted that since moving into the flat, she experienced

numerous issues stemming from the freeholder’s inaction, including a

lack of maintenance and general neglect of the Property which has

continued to date. In particular, the applicant complained of damp and

mould exacerbated by a leaking gutter in or about the end of 2023. [NAME] carried out a survey in 2024 and again in January 2025 which found

the presence of damp and mould in the flat. 7. The applicant also complained about the lack of transparency on the part

of the respondent and its managing agents in providing access to

documents and information including insurance documents and annual

reports. 8. The applicant also asserted that there had been a lack of maintenance of

the property which had led to overflowing gutters, an unsafe driveway

and poorly maintained living conditions. 9. Mr [NAME] told the tribunal that budget statement covering the period

2022 to 2025 were provided to the applicant. Mr [APPELLANT] also told the

tribunal that the cost of the works in relation to the damp, mould and

external repairs will not be passed onto the applicant and will be met by

the freeholder. Works to remedy the damp issue in the flat have now

been carried out by the installation of an (effective) damp roof course. 10. Mr [NAME] also told the tribunal that external redecoration works had

been carried out in May 2025.

4

The tribunal’s reasons 11. The tribunal finds the cost associated with the overflowing and leaking

guttering work should not be passed onto the applicant (pro rata) in view

of the limited maintenance that has been carried out on this building.

The tribunal finds the respondent was made aware of the blocked

guttering by the applicant’s email dated 16 June 2022. Although an

inspection took place in July 2022, the gutters remained blocked until

2024/2025. 12. The tribunal limits the management fee to £140 per annum for 2023

and 2024 due to the evident lack of management of the building. 13. Although the applicant challenged the whole of the service charges for

2023; 2024 and 2025 the tribunal found the application lacked detail as

to the reasons for the dispute. Further, the tribunal found the applicant

had included documents relating to a much earlier period e.g. 2014

which were of limited assistance to the tribunal in respect of the current

application. 14. The tribunal also found the respondent’s evidence was somewhat

incomplete. However, the tribunal was satisfied on the balance of

probabilities by the respondent’s evidence, invoices and accounts that all

the fees incurred for the years 2023; 2024 and 2025 (estimate) are

reasonable and payable with the exception of the guttering and the

reduced management fee. 15. As the respondent has agreed to pay the applicant’s share of the external

works the tribunal does need to consider the reasonableness of those

works or their cost. Section 20C & para 5A, Sch 11 16. In the applicant’s statement of case Dr [APPELLANT] stated she wished to

make an application for an order under s20C of the Landlord and Tenant

Act 1985, so that none of the respondent’s costs can be added to the

service charges. In light of the tribunal’s findings and the respondent’s

concessions, the tribunal finds it reasonable and appropriate to make the

order sought. Similarly, the tribunal makes an order under para. 5A of

Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 14 September 2025

5

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 ([NAME]), then a written application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The application should be made 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 [NAME] 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 ([NAME]).