Accurate
Country-specific legal content
Drafted with legal expertise for each jurisdiction, far more thorough than AI-generated drafts that copy generic clauses across borders.
RentalUnited Kingdom
UK FTT Service Charge Challenge Template (s.27A LTA 1985)
Draft a UK Statement of Case for an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a determination of whether residential service charges are payable, by whom, to whom, the amount, and the manner of payment. The template covers s.27A jurisdiction, s.19 reasonableness, s.20 consultation failures, the Daejan Investments v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 dispensation framework, Building Safety Act 2022 Schedule 8 leaseholder protections, comparable major-works evidence, expert witness proposals and Tribunal bundle pagination. British leaseholders facing inflated or non-compliant service charge demands use this template to mount a structured FTT challenge.
Free to useInstant PDFNo account required
PDF (free) + editable Word (.docx) with Expert
Statement of Case — FTT Service Charge Challenge
In Respect Of Flat 14, Marlborough Court, 28 Chiswick High Road, London W4 1PT
TO: The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LR
APPLICANT: Christopher James Hughes
Flat 14, Marlborough Court, 28 Chiswick High Road, London W4 1PT
cj.hughes@protonmail.com
07744 821903
RESPONDENT: Westleys Block Management Ltd (managing agent for Cavendish Place Holdings Ltd)
120 Acton Lane, London W4 5HD
APPLICATION DATE: 2026-06-03
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LR
APPLICANT: Christopher James Hughes
Flat 14, Marlborough Court, 28 Chiswick High Road, London W4 1PT
cj.hughes@protonmail.com
07744 821903
RESPONDENT: Westleys Block Management Ltd (managing agent for Cavendish Place Holdings Ltd)
120 Acton Lane, London W4 5HD
APPLICATION DATE: 2026-06-03
STATEMENT OF CASE — LTA 1985 s.27A APPLICATION
Years: 2024-25, 2025-26 (two years) · Sum challenged: £8,950.00
1.
APPLICANT, PROPERTY AND LEASE
1.1 The Applicant is Christopher James Hughes, the leaseholder of Flat 14, Marlborough Court, 28 Chiswick High Road, London W4 1PT under a lease dated 2014-08-22. 1.2 The Respondent is Westleys Block Management Ltd (managing agent for Cavendish Place Holdings Ltd), the landlord (or its managing agent) under the said lease.
2.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND JURISDICTION
2.1 This application is made under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a determination by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) of: (a) whether a service charge is payable; (b) by whom; (c) to whom; (d) the amount; (e) the date by which it is payable; and (f) the manner in which it is payable. 2.2 The Tribunal has regard to: s.18 LTA 1985 (definition); s.19 (reasonableness limitation); s.20 (consultation requirements); s.20ZA (dispensation power); s.21-22 (inspection of accounts); the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003; and where applicable, the Building Safety Act 2022 Schedule 8 leaseholder protections.
3.
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
3.1 The Applicant challenges service charges totalling £8,950.00 in respect of the service-charge year(s) 2024-25, 2025-26 (two years). 3.2 The primary basis of challenge is multiple combined grounds — s.27A reasonableness, s.20 consultation failures and scope-of-lease objections. 3.3 The detailed grounds are as follows:
(1) Reasonableness under s.19 — the external redecoration and roof renewal works carried out at the property in autumn 2025 cost £102,720 (£4,280 per leaseholder), materially above contemporary market rates per RICS BCIS for similar-size London W4 blocks; (2) s.20 consultation failures — both Stage 1 Notice of Intention (Jun 2025) and Stage 2 Statement of Estimates (Aug 2025) failed to incorporate the Applicant's alternative contractor nominations and contained no estimate from a contractor wholly unconnected with the landlord, contrary to reg 5(2)(a)(i); (3) Scope of lease — the entry-phone replacement component (£18,720) is not within the scope of the lease covenants, which limit the service charge to repair and maintenance of the common parts; full replacement of a functioning system is not "repair".
(1) Reasonableness under s.19 — the external redecoration and roof renewal works carried out at the property in autumn 2025 cost £102,720 (£4,280 per leaseholder), materially above contemporary market rates per RICS BCIS for similar-size London W4 blocks; (2) s.20 consultation failures — both Stage 1 Notice of Intention (Jun 2025) and Stage 2 Statement of Estimates (Aug 2025) failed to incorporate the Applicant's alternative contractor nominations and contained no estimate from a contractor wholly unconnected with the landlord, contrary to reg 5(2)(a)(i); (3) Scope of lease — the entry-phone replacement component (£18,720) is not within the scope of the lease covenants, which limit the service charge to repair and maintenance of the common parts; full replacement of a functioning system is not "repair".
4.
MULTI-YEAR BREAKDOWN
4.1 The challenge spans multiple service-charge years. The breakdown by year and challenged item is:
2024-25: General service charge £3,420 (demanded), Applicant reasonable £2,100, difference £1,320. Items challenged: external decoration overspend, audit fees, surveyor fees.
2025-26: Major works contribution £4,280 (£102,720 total / 24 leaseholders), reasonable proportion estimated £2,650, difference £1,630. Items challenged: scope and cost of roof renewal, entry-phone replacement, external decoration.
Total challenge across 2 years: £2,950 per leaseholder × 24 = £70,800 contested across the block, of which Applicant's personal challenge totals £2,950 + interest.
2024-25: General service charge £3,420 (demanded), Applicant reasonable £2,100, difference £1,320. Items challenged: external decoration overspend, audit fees, surveyor fees.
2025-26: Major works contribution £4,280 (£102,720 total / 24 leaseholders), reasonable proportion estimated £2,650, difference £1,630. Items challenged: scope and cost of roof renewal, entry-phone replacement, external decoration.
Total challenge across 2 years: £2,950 per leaseholder × 24 = £70,800 contested across the block, of which Applicant's personal challenge totals £2,950 + interest.
5.
DAEJAN [2013] UKSC 14 — DISPENSATION FRAMEWORK
5.1 Where the Respondent applies to the Tribunal for dispensation from the consultation requirements under s.20ZA LTA 1985, the leading authority is Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal should focus on whether the leaseholder has been caused relevant prejudice by the non-compliance with consultation requirements. 5.2 The Applicant's position on dispensation, in light of Daejan, is:
In the event of any Respondent dispensation application, the Applicant relies on relevant prejudice: (a) loss of opportunity to nominate alternative contractors at Stage 1 (three contractors nominated; not pursued); (b) loss of opportunity to obtain comparable estimates at Stage 2 (only two estimates both from connected contractors); (c) loss of opportunity for adequate Stage 2 observations on cost and specification (insufficient time + inadequate detail); (d) financial prejudice in inflated cost estimated at £35-50 per leaseholder against the Daejan financial-prejudice benchmark.
In the event of any Respondent dispensation application, the Applicant relies on relevant prejudice: (a) loss of opportunity to nominate alternative contractors at Stage 1 (three contractors nominated; not pursued); (b) loss of opportunity to obtain comparable estimates at Stage 2 (only two estimates both from connected contractors); (c) loss of opportunity for adequate Stage 2 observations on cost and specification (insufficient time + inadequate detail); (d) financial prejudice in inflated cost estimated at £35-50 per leaseholder against the Daejan financial-prejudice benchmark.
6.
COMPARABLE WORKS EVIDENCE
6.1 The Applicant relies on the following comparable major-works evidence to demonstrate unreasonableness:
RICS BCIS 2025 Q4 median for similar-size London W4 24-flat block: external redecoration £73,000-£97,000 (£3,040-£4,040 per leaseholder); roof renewal £15,000-£22,000 (£625-£917 per leaseholder); entry-phone replacement £8,000-£12,000 (£333-£500 per leaseholder). Recent comparable at Devonshire House Hammersmith W6 (works March 2026): £85,000 total scope (£3,540 per leaseholder for similar 24-flat post-1930s building). The challenged total of £102,720 (£4,280 per leaseholder) is approximately 12-25% above the comparable evidence.
RICS BCIS 2025 Q4 median for similar-size London W4 24-flat block: external redecoration £73,000-£97,000 (£3,040-£4,040 per leaseholder); roof renewal £15,000-£22,000 (£625-£917 per leaseholder); entry-phone replacement £8,000-£12,000 (£333-£500 per leaseholder). Recent comparable at Devonshire House Hammersmith W6 (works March 2026): £85,000 total scope (£3,540 per leaseholder for similar 24-flat post-1930s building). The challenged total of £102,720 (£4,280 per leaseholder) is approximately 12-25% above the comparable evidence.
7.
EXPERT WITNESS EVIDENCE
8.1 The Applicant proposes to call expert evidence on the reasonableness of the challenged sums:
Mr Robert Hartwell MRICS, RICS-accredited chartered building surveyor (Hartwell Property Surveyors Ltd, 41 Camberwell Road, London SE5) — proposed expert evidence on (a) market reasonableness of the works costs, (b) specification adequacy, (c) Building Surveyor industry comparator analysis. Joint instruction proposed under FTT Rule 19.
Mr Robert Hartwell MRICS, RICS-accredited chartered building surveyor (Hartwell Property Surveyors Ltd, 41 Camberwell Road, London SE5) — proposed expert evidence on (a) market reasonableness of the works costs, (b) specification adequacy, (c) Building Surveyor industry comparator analysis. Joint instruction proposed under FTT Rule 19.
8.
BUNDLE PAGINATION
9.1 The Applicant's bundle is paginated as follows for the FTT hearing:
Bundle Tab A — Pleadings (Application Form RTA-1; this Statement; Respondent's reply).
Bundle Tab B — Witness Statements (Christopher Hughes; supporting leaseholder statements).
Bundle Tab C — Documents (lease, service charge accounts and demands, s.20 notices, response correspondence, photographs).
Bundle Tab D — Expert evidence (Hartwell Property Surveyors report).
Bundle Tab E — Authorities (Daejan; Aviva Investors; LTA 1985 ss.18-30; CRA 2002 s.151).
Bundle Tab A — Pleadings (Application Form RTA-1; this Statement; Respondent's reply).
Bundle Tab B — Witness Statements (Christopher Hughes; supporting leaseholder statements).
Bundle Tab C — Documents (lease, service charge accounts and demands, s.20 notices, response correspondence, photographs).
Bundle Tab D — Expert evidence (Hartwell Property Surveyors report).
Bundle Tab E — Authorities (Daejan; Aviva Investors; LTA 1985 ss.18-30; CRA 2002 s.151).
9.
EVIDENCE SCHEDULE
10.1 The Applicant relies on the following documentary evidence:
Annex 1 — Service charge demand 2024-25; Annex 2 — Service charge demand 2025-26; Annex 3 — Lease dated 22 August 2014; Annex 4 — s.20 Notice of Intention dated 12 June 2025; Annex 5 — s.20 Notice of Estimates dated 14 August 2025; Annex 6 — Applicant's Stage 1 / Stage 2 response letters; Annex 7 — RICS BCIS rates for 2025 Q4 London W4 comparable; Annex 8 — Hartwell Property Surveyors expert report dated 22 May 2026; Annex 9 — Photographs of common parts pre-works; Annex 10 — Group leaseholder letter (10 supporting leaseholders).
Annex 1 — Service charge demand 2024-25; Annex 2 — Service charge demand 2025-26; Annex 3 — Lease dated 22 August 2014; Annex 4 — s.20 Notice of Intention dated 12 June 2025; Annex 5 — s.20 Notice of Estimates dated 14 August 2025; Annex 6 — Applicant's Stage 1 / Stage 2 response letters; Annex 7 — RICS BCIS rates for 2025 Q4 London W4 comparable; Annex 8 — Hartwell Property Surveyors expert report dated 22 May 2026; Annex 9 — Photographs of common parts pre-works; Annex 10 — Group leaseholder letter (10 supporting leaseholders).
10.
DETERMINATION SOUGHT AND GOVERNING LAW
11.1 The Applicant invites the Tribunal to determine that the sums challenged are NOT payable, alternatively to determine the reasonable amount payable under s.19 LTA 1985. Costs are reserved under reg 13 of the FTT (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. 11.2 This application is conducted under the law of England and the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.
11.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I, Christopher James Hughes, declare that the contents of this Statement of Case are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
APPLICANT
Christopher James Hughes
Leaseholder
Date: ____________________
Available as a print-ready PDF or an editable Microsoft Word (.docx) file.
What Is a UK FTT Service Charge Challenge?
A UK FTT service charge challenge is a formal application by a leaseholder (or group of leaseholders) to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a determination of whether residential service charges are payable. The Tribunal has the power to decide: (a) whether a service charge is payable at all; (b) by whom; (c) to whom; (d) the amount; (e) the date by which it is payable; and (f) the manner in which it is payable. The British application is typically initiated on Form RTA-1 (or successor form) and the Statement of Case is the substantive document setting out the leaseholder's position.
The FTT Property Chamber is a specialist statutory tribunal — three to five members including legal and surveyor expertise — applying the Property Chamber Rules 2013. The Tribunal applies a clearly defined statutory framework: section 18 (definition of service charge); section 19 (reasonableness limitation); section 20 (consultation requirements + £250 per leaseholder cap for qualifying works / £100 per accounting year cap for QLTAs); section 20ZA (dispensation power); section 21-22 (inspection of accounts and receipts); together with the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.151.
Where the challenge involves cladding or other relevant defects in a higher-risk building or in a building of more than 11 metres or 5 storeys, the leaseholder protections in Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 also apply — qualifying leaseholders cannot be charged for cladding remediation at all, and other contributions are capped. The Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 dispensation framework applies where the British landlord seeks s.20ZA dispensation from consultation requirements — the Supreme Court emphasised that the analysis focuses on relevant prejudice to the leaseholder. Costs at FTT are awarded only where a party has acted frivolously, vexatiously or wholly unreasonably (FTT Rule 13).
What's Covered in This UK Template
Our UK template produces a structured Statement of Case for the FTT Property Chamber.
Applicant + Property + Respondent + FTT
British leaseholder applicant, property address, flat reference, lease date, respondent (landlord / managing agent), FTT office address, application date.
Statutory Framework Citation
LTA 1985 ss.18-30, 27A, 19, 20, 20ZA, 21-22, CRA 2002 s.151, Service Charges (Consultation) Regs 2003, BSA 2022 Schedule 8, FTT Property Chamber Rules 2013.
Service Charge Years + Total + Grounds
Years challenged, total amount, primary ground (s.27A reasonableness / s.20 consultation / not within lease / multiple combined), detailed grounds narrative.
Evidence Schedule
Documentary evidence schedule — service charge accounts, demands, s.20 notices, lease, photographs, expert reports, comparable evidence.
Multi-Year Breakdown
Expert mode adds the year-by-year item-by-item breakdown — demanded amount vs Applicant's proposed reasonable amount vs difference. Clear quantum analysis at FTT level.
Daejan Dispensation Framework
Expert mode adds the Daejan Investments v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 dispensation analysis — relevant-prejudice argument for any landlord s.20ZA dispensation application.
Comparable Major-Works Evidence
Expert mode adds the structured RICS BCIS comparable evidence schedule — market rates, recent named comparables, leaseholder-engaged contractor quotes. Critical for s.19 reasonableness challenges.
Building Safety Act 2022 Schedule 8
Expert mode adds the BSA 2022 Schedule 8 leaseholder-protections analysis — qualifying-lease status, building height, relevant-defect classification, cap or exclusion applied.
Expert Witness Proposal
Expert mode adds the expert witness proposal — RICS / chartered building surveyor, scope of opinion, joint-instruction proposal under FTT Rule 19.
Bundle Pagination
Expert mode adds the structured bundle pagination — Pleadings (A) / Statements (B) / Documents (C) / Expert evidence (D) / Authorities (E).
Determination Sought
Structured determination request — sums not payable / reasonable amount under s.19; costs reservation under FTT Rule 13.
Statement of Truth
Standard FTT Property Chamber Statement of Truth — bound by the Civil Procedure Rules false-statement contempt sanctions.
How to Create a UK FTT Service Charge Challenge
Follow these steps to draft a Statement of Case for FTT submission.
- 1
Enter Applicant + Property + Respondent + FTT Office
Enter the British leaseholder's name, address, optional contact; the property address and flat reference; the lease date; the respondent (landlord / managing agent); the FTT Property Chamber office address (the address from which Forms RTA-1 are processed); the application date.
- 2
Set Years + Amount + Primary Ground
Enter the service-charge years challenged, the total amount challenged (in GBP), and pick the primary ground — s.27A reasonableness (s.19) / s.20 consultation failure + £250/£100 cap / not within lease / multiple combined (recommended). Write the detailed grounds narrative — specific items, reasonableness analysis, consultation defects, scope-of-lease objections.
- 3
Add Evidence Schedule + Governing Law
List documentary evidence — service charge accounts, demands, s.20 notices, lease, photographs, expert reports, comparable evidence, supporting leaseholder letters. Confirm governing law (England — FTT Property Chamber Rules 2013).
- 4
Unlock Expert: Breakdown + Daejan + Comparable + BSA
In Expert mode, add the multi-year breakdown (year-by-year item analysis with quantum); add the Daejan dispensation framework analysis (relevant prejudice); add the comparable major-works evidence (RICS BCIS, named comparables, leaseholder quotes); add the BSA 2022 Schedule 8 analysis (qualifying-lease, building height, relevant defects, cap or exclusion).
- 5
Add Expert Witness + Bundle + Submit
In Expert mode, add the expert witness proposal (RICS / chartered building surveyor with scope and joint-instruction proposal under FTT Rule 19) and the structured bundle pagination (A/B/C/D/E). Download as PDF, attach to Form RTA-1, submit to the FTT Property Chamber. The tribunal will list the matter and serve a directions order.
Why Doxuno documents are different
Four things that make our templates more thorough than AI-generated drafts and more current than static template libraries.
Always current
Always current with the law
Templates carrying statute references are continuously updated as the law changes. Your document always reflects the current legal framework.
Free PDF
Print-ready PDF
Free to download. Vector text, embedded fonts, statute citations baked in. Print, sign, file. Ready for any signing flow including electronic signature.
Word · .docx
Editable Word (.docx)
Continue editing in Word after download. Add custom clauses, reuse the template for similar agreements, or share with a colleague for collaborative review.
Requires Expert one-time unlock or any paid Doxuno subscription.
Legal Considerations
FTT Property Chamber proceedings are formal Tribunal proceedings — preparation and evidence determine outcomes.
This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For high-value challenges (over £20,000), complex Building Safety Act issues, or contested expert evidence, instruct a UK leasehold solicitor or surveyor with FTT experience.
Reviewed for England FTT Property Chamber practice (June 2026)
Section 27A Jurisdiction
Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (introduced by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.155) confers on the British FTT Property Chamber the jurisdiction to determine whether a service charge is payable, by whom, to whom, the amount, the date by which payable, and the manner of payment. A leaseholder may apply pre-emptively (before the landlord has demanded payment) or in response to a demand. A group of leaseholders may apply collectively. The Tribunal applies a clearly defined statutory framework and gives a binding determination. Appeal lies to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law, with permission.
Reasonableness under s.19
Section 19 of the LTA 1985 limits service charges to amounts (a) reasonably incurred and (b) where the works or services have been provided to a reasonable standard. The British Tribunal analyses reasonableness having regard to: (i) market rates for similar works (RICS BCIS provides authoritative comparator data); (ii) the specification (over-specification or unnecessary works are not reasonable); (iii) the standard of works actually carried out; (iv) the procurement process (open tender, multiple quotes, unconnected contractors). Where reasonableness is challenged, the Applicant should provide RICS BCIS evidence and ideally a recent leaseholder-engaged quote for comparison.
Section 20 Consultation Failures and Caps
Section 20 LTA 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 require landlords to consult leaseholders before carrying out qualifying works costing more than £250 per leaseholder or entering into a qualifying long-term agreement (QLTA) costing more than £100 per leaseholder per accounting year. The three-stage consultation (Notice of Intention / Notice of Estimates / Notice of Reasons) is described in our separate Section 20 Consultation Response template. Where consultation has failed (or is materially defective), the recoverable contribution per leaseholder is capped at £250 or £100 per accounting year regardless of actual cost — unless the landlord obtains s.20ZA dispensation from the FTT. The Daejan dispensation framework applies (see below).
Daejan Dispensation Framework
In Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, the Supreme Court held that on a s.20ZA dispensation application, the British Tribunal should focus on whether the leaseholder has been caused relevant prejudice by the consultation non-compliance. Relevant prejudice typically includes: loss of opportunity to nominate alternative contractors; loss of opportunity to obtain comparable estimates; loss of opportunity to observe on cost or specification; financial prejudice in inflated cost. The Tribunal weighs the prejudice; where prejudice is established, dispensation can still be granted but on conditions (e.g. reduction of recoverable amount, payment of leaseholder costs). The Applicant's Statement of Case should anticipate any dispensation application and articulate the relevant prejudice in advance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Draft Your UK FTT Service Charge Challenge Now
Use our free LTA 1985 s.27A + FTT Property Chamber Rules 2013 template to draft a structured Statement of Case for FTT submission. Expert mode unlocks the multi-year breakdown, Daejan dispensation framework, RICS BCIS comparable evidence, BSA 2022 Schedule 8 leaseholder protections, expert witness proposal and Tribunal bundle pagination — the complete UK FTT service-charge challenge toolkit.
Free PDF · Editable Word with Expert · No account required