Landlord and tenant dispute over service charges

Upper Tribunal rules on service charges dispute between Notting Hill Genesis and tenants

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) recently delivered a significant ruling in the case of Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) versus Mr Helal Uddin and others, concerning the liability of tenants to pay service charges. The case involved tenants of Endeavour House and Mayflower House in East London, who contested the charges levied by NHG, their landlord.

The dispute revolved around whether tenants were liable to pay for services provided by the freeholder, Celtic Motors (C.M.) Ltd, under the terms of their tenancy agreements. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) had previously determined that most of the charges were payable, but the tenants were not liable for costs associated with services provided by the freeholder. This decision was challenged by NHG, leading to the appeal.

NHG argued that the cost of services provided by the freeholder could be recouped as a 'management fee' or under the acronym 'PSCTP' in the tenancy agreements. However, the Upper Tribunal found that these terms were not sufficient to establish liability for the tenants to contribute to the costs of services supplied by the freeholder.

The Tribunal examined the tenancy agreements, which included various forms and schedules of charges. It was noted that the agreements were intended to have a list of services for which tenants would pay, but NHG did not have complete copies of all agreements. The Tribunal found that the lack of clarity and consistency in the agreements meant that tenants could not be held liable for the disputed charges.

Another key issue was the cost of lift maintenance, which NHG sought to recover under the heading of 'daily building fabric'. The Tribunal disagreed with NHG's interpretation, stating that the term would not be understood to include lift maintenance costs.

The Tribunal also highlighted NHG's failure to provide evidence of the services and costs incurred, which made it impossible to determine whether the charges were reasonable. This lack of evidence further supported the Tribunal's decision to dismiss NHG's claims for the disputed charges.

The ruling has significant implications for landlords and tenants, particularly in the context of service charge disputes. It underscores the importance of clear and consistent terms in tenancy agreements and the need for landlords to provide evidence of the services and costs for which they seek reimbursement.

While the appeal was dismissed on the issue of service charges, the Tribunal allowed NHG's appeal regarding lift maintenance, determining that tenants were liable for these costs under the agreements.

Learn More

For more information on housing law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.

Copyright & permissions