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

38.It will be recalled that at the preliminary hearing in the county court Mr Gurvits handed up a costs schedule in Form N260 claiming £6,290 for post-issue costs in the county court (paragraph 12 above).39.That sum was obviously not one of the items making up the claim itself in the county court, and therefore, correctly, did not feature in the appellant’s statement of case in the FTT. Nevertheless it appears that the schedule was produced at the FTT hearing and the FTT was asked (by Mr Gurvits, who is not legally qualified) to make an order in respect of it. The FTT said this:“18.The tribunal was provided with a Summary Statement of Costs totalling £6,290.00 as of May 2021. The tribunal finds that clause 3(A)(v) of the lease makes provision for the payment of costs for the purpose of or incidental to the preparation of notices required for forfeiture. The tribunal finds that by a letter dated 14 August 2019 to the respondent from the applicant’s solicitors Scott Cohen, reference was made to obtaining a determination of the alleged debt with a view to initiating forfeiture proceedings. At the hearing further costs were claimed of £1,300 (plus VAT) for the solicitor’s costs of preparing the hearing bundle and £1,080 (inclusive of VAT) for Mr Gurvits costs although he is not legally qualified or produced any proof of loss. 19.The tribunal finds the costs claimed are out of all proportion to the sums initially claimed and to the sums recovered. Therefore, the tribunal limits the costs to £2,000 representing approximately 20% and the extent of the respondent’s successful challenges to the £9,000 originally claimed.”40.Curiously, therefore, the FTT at this point woke up to the section 146 clause, and took the view that the £6,290 comprised an administration charge demanded pursuant to that clause of which it was to assess the reasonableness and payability. It then proceeded to apply a test of proportionality, which the appellant says was not the correct test. In other words the FTT purported to exercise, in respect of this sum, its jurisdiction under Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.41.But that jurisdiction was not engaged. There had been no demand for this sum as an administration charge. 42.This was simply the claim for costs in the county court – as the form on which it was set out, and the heading “In the Romford County Court” made clear - which Mr Gurvits would have made on 11 May 2021 had that turned out to be a final hearing. He tried again to claim those costs at the hearing in the FTT, and cannot be criticised for not knowing that the FTT had no jurisdiction to make an order for costs in the county court.43.The order made at the FTT’s paragraph 9 is set aside. The costs claimed were incurred in the county court proceedings and the FTT had no jurisdiction to make an order in respect of them and therefore there is no reason to remit this point to the FTT.