Case No. UKUT-285-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Numbers:-LC-2022-125

3.9, Oval Road comprises three flats. Mr Franco holds a long lease of Flat A. The lease makes provision for the landlord to provide services and for the leaseholder to pay a variable service charge and administration charges. The appellant is the landlord, and it employs Eagerstates Ltd as its managing agents. Half yearly payments of both actual and estimated service charges are demanded on 24 June and 25 December each year.4.The lease contains the following covenant by the leaseholder at clause 3(a)(v):“To pay all costs charges and expenses (including Solicitors’ costs and Surveyors’ fees) incurred by the Lessor for the purpose of or incidental to the preparation and service of a notice under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925.”5.There have been previous legal proceedings between these parties. On In 2017 the appellant issued proceedings against the respondent in the county court at Romford (claim number D9QZ449J) claiming arrears of service and administration charges. Those proceedings were transferred to the FTT for a determination of the reasonableness and payability of the charges, and concluded on 27 April 2018 when the county court ordered the respondent to pay £5,282.09 t the appellant.6.On 14 May 2018 Eagerstates Limited invoiced the appellant £3,600 for administration costs for its assistance with those county court proceedings, and on the same date that sum was demanded from the respondent by way of administration charge. On 1 June 2018 the appellant issued its regular service charge demand, which showed that sum as still unpaid.7.On 3 June 2019 the appellant sent to the respondent a service charge demand requiring payment of actual charges for 2018/19. The total for the building was £5,329.88; the respondent’s 1/3 share was £1,776.63 of which £781.19 had been received on account so £995.44 was demanded.8.In the same letter the appellant demanded payment of estimated service charges for 2019/20, including £3,186.00 for works to be done on the meter cupboard; the respondent’s 1/3 share was £2,417.43 so his half-yearly instalment was £1,208.72.9.A service charge demand dated 13 August 2019 included a number of items labelled “notice of proceedings”, “solicitors’ costs” and “admin costs”, amounting to £2,040. What they related to would not have been apparent to the respondent without an explanation, and I do no know whether any explanation was given, but it is now known that they were the pre-issue legal and administrative costs of proceedings commenced on 20 September 2019 against the respondent in the county court at Romford for arrears of ground rent, service charges and administration charges.10.The total claimed in those proceedings was £9,000.38, together with £555 court fee and fixed costs. The £9,000.38 was made up of:a.£1776.63 service charges demanded in June 2019 (see paragraph 7 above);b.£1,208.72 estimated service charges demanded in June 2019 (see paragraph 8 above);c.The £3,600 administration costs demanded in respect of the earlier proceedings;d.£2,045 administration charges in respect of the current proceedings.e.Ground rent and interest.11.By an order of 28 January 2020 the claim was allocated to the small claims track and listed for a preliminary hearing on 11 May 2021.12.At that hearing the appellant was represented by Eagerstates’ employee Mr Ronni Gurvits, who handed up a schedule of the appellant’s costs in Form N260 in the sum of £6,290, in the expectation that that would be the final hearing in the matter. However, the Deputy District Judge made an order which said “Transfer to First Tier Property Tribunal”; by that I understand that he transferred to the FTT that part of the claim that it had jurisdiction to determine, pursuant to section 176A of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which provides“(1) Where, in any proceedings before a court, there falls for determination a question which the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal would have jurisdiction to determine under an enactment specified in subsection (2) on an appeal or application to the tribunal, the court—(a) may by order transfer to the First-tier Tribunal so much of the proceedings as relate to the determination of that question…”13.The effect of that order was that the First-tier Tribunal would exercise its jurisdiction under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine whether the service charges comprised in the claim were reasonable and payable, and its jurisdiction under paragraph 5 of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act2002 to determine whether the administration charges within the claim were reasonable and payable.14.The county court’s order of 11 May 2021 also said:“Matters falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the County Courts are to be heard by the Tribunal Judge sitting as a Deputy District Judge”.15.That direction brought into play the deployment arrangements – often called “double hatting” – which enable the FTT judge also to sit as a judge of the county court and determine matters that fall outside the FTT’s jurisdiction – essentially ground rent, interest, and county court costs – so that there is no need for the proceedings to bounce back to the county court once the reasonableness and payability of service and administration charges have been determined.16.The FTT on 15 December 2021 directed the appellant to serve a Statement of Case by 1 October 2021, which it did, and the respondent to serve a Statement of Case by 15 October 2021 “setting out all items disputed with the reasons why they are disputed and, where applicable, any alternative sums offered by the Respondent”. That was a standard direction in service and administration charge cases, where the leaseholder is not entitled simply to put the landlord to proof that the charges are reasonable but must first say why they are unreasonable (Schilling v Canary Riverside Pte Limited [2005] EWLands LRX 65 2005).17.The respondent did not file a Statement of Case, despite the deadline being extended to 1 November 2021.18.A hearing took place on 17 December 2021, and on 21 January 2022 a judgment was delivered setting out the decisions of the FTT made by a judge and member, and the decisions of the county court made by the same judge sitting as a judge of the county court. The FTT decided that the respondent had to pay service charges in the sum of £1,673.16 and costs of £2,000. On the same date the made an order in the county court requiring the respondent to pay the sums determined by the FTT to be reasonable and payable (£3,673.16), together with ground rent of £100 and costs of £555. 19.It will be apparent therefore that not all the sums claimed by the appellant were found to be payable. Four points in the FTT’s decision are appealed, with permission from this Tribunal, and I take them one by one.