Every major matter the Residential Property Division handles.
Each section explains the case, the statute that governs it, the application form, the legal tests, the evidence that wins, the typical outcomes and the pitfalls we see most often.
Service Charge Disputes
Service charges fund repairs, insurance, management, cleaning, lift and lighting maintenance, reserves and major works. Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 gives the Property Chamber jurisdiction to determine whether a service charge is payable, by whom, when and in what amount — for past, present and even prospective costs. The combined effect of s.18, s.19 and s.27A is that a landlord can only recover costs that are (a) actually incurred, (b) recoverable under the lease and (c) reasonably incurred and of a reasonable standard.
When the tribunal is the right forum
When a leaseholder questions the amount demanded, the standard or scope of the works, whether a particular cost is recoverable under the lease at all, or when reserve fund contributions look excessive or unjustified. You can apply before paying, after paying, and even before demands have been issued for prospective costs.
Legal tests the tribunal will apply
- Is the cost recoverable under the lease wording (the contractual question)?
- Was the cost actually incurred and properly evidenced (the accounts question)?
- Is the cost reasonable in amount and of a reasonable standard (the s.19 question)?
- Has the s.20 consultation been followed where qualifying works exceed £250 per leaseholder?
- Are reserve fund contributions consistent with the lease and Tech Release 03/11 / RICS guidance?
Evidence we'll need
- The lease and all deeds of variation
- Service charge demands and the s.21B summary of rights
- Certified service charge accounts for the years in dispute
- Major works specifications, tenders, contracts and final account
- Insurance schedule, premiums, broker commission disclosures
- Management agent contract and fee schedule
- Correspondence with the landlord, agent and contractors
- Comparable evidence — market quotes, RICS benchmarks, similar blocks
Typical outcomes
- Specific items disallowed or reduced in amount
- Determination that a category is not recoverable under the lease
- Order under s.20C limiting landlord recovery of its own legal costs
- Order under Schedule 11 paragraph 5A on administration charge legal costs
- Refund or reduction of demands already paid
Pitfalls we see
- Time-bar arguments: s.20B requires demands within 18 months of the cost being incurred (or notice in writing of intention to demand)
- Failing to apply for s.20C at the hearing means the landlord can add its costs back to the next year's service charge
- Confusing recoverability (lease question) with reasonableness (statutory question) — both must be argued
"Our managing agent has added a £18,500 'major works oversight fee' to the service charge on top of the building contract. Our lease only allows a flat management fee. Can the tribunal disallow it?"
Ask the AI dashboard →Administration Charges & Management Disputes
Administration charges are amounts payable by a leaseholder under the lease for a specific event — granting a consent (subletting, alterations), responding to a breach, late payment, default interest, or the landlord's legal costs of pursuing the leaseholder. Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act subjects variable administration charges to a reasonableness test and lets the tribunal vary or strike them down.
When the tribunal is the right forum
When consent fees, late charges, breach administration costs or landlord legal costs look excessive, are not authorised by the lease, or are being added to the leaseholder's account without proper basis.
Legal tests the tribunal will apply
- Is the charge a 'variable administration charge' within Schedule 11?
- Is the charge clearly authorised by the lease?
- Is the amount reasonable (Schedule 11 paragraph 2)?
- If sought as legal costs, would Schedule 11 paragraph 5A bar recovery?
Evidence we'll need
- The specific lease clause the charge is said to fall under
- Itemised invoices and detailed time records
- Correspondence triggering the charge (the breach letter, consent request, etc.)
- Comparable market evidence on reasonableness
- Any standard scale of charges published by the landlord or managing agent
Typical outcomes
- Charge struck down entirely as outside the lease
- Charge reduced under the Schedule 11 reasonableness test
- Paragraph 5A order preventing recovery of landlord legal costs
- Refund of overpaid administration charges
Pitfalls we see
- Administration charge demands must also be accompanied by the prescribed Summary of Rights and Obligations — many are not
- If you pay 'under protest' you keep the right to challenge — silence on a demand can be unhelpful
"Our freeholder charges £550 plus VAT to consider any sub-letting consent. The lease says only that consent must not be unreasonably withheld. Is this enforceable?"
Ask the AI dashboard →Major Works & Section 20
Where 'qualifying works' will cost any single leaseholder more than £250, the landlord must follow the Section 20 consultation procedure — Notice of Intention, observations period, Notices of Estimates, observations on tenders, and notice of award. Failing to comply caps each leaseholder's contribution at £250, regardless of the actual cost. The landlord can apply for dispensation under s.20ZA, which the tribunal can grant on terms.
When the tribunal is the right forum
When consultation has been skipped, rushed, or pursued in defective form; when costs are challenged as unreasonable; when the landlord retrospectively applies for dispensation; or when a long-term qualifying agreement exceeding £100 per leaseholder per year is in play.
Legal tests the tribunal will apply
- Was every consultation step satisfied — content and timing — by the regulations?
- If not, has the landlord shown 'no relevant prejudice' to obtain dispensation (Daejan v Benson)?
- Are the works themselves reasonable in scope and method (s.19)?
- Is the contract price reasonable against tender returns and market evidence?
Evidence we'll need
- All Notices of Intention and Estimates with proof of service
- Specifications, tenders and contractor responses
- Project correspondence and contract administrator instructions
- Final account, variations log and certificates
- Section 20 timeline / Gantt with consultation step alignment
Typical outcomes
- Contributions capped at £250 per leaseholder
- Dispensation granted on terms (e.g. landlord pays leaseholders' reasonable costs)
- Sums disallowed on s.19 reasonableness grounds even where consultation complied
Pitfalls we see
- Daejan made dispensation easier — the focus is now prejudice, not technical default
- Leaseholders should put their best 'prejudice' arguments forward early (lost opportunity to nominate, lost cost saving)
- Long-term agreements (over 12 months and over £100/year) trigger their own consultation regime — often overlooked
"Our landlord issued only a Notice of Intention for a £640,000 cladding remediation, then awarded the contract without any Notice of Estimates. Can our contributions be capped at £250?"
Ask the AI dashboard →Enfranchisement & Lease Extensions
Statutory enfranchisement gives qualifying leaseholders two main rights: collectively buying the freehold of their block (s.1 LRHUDA 1993), or extending an individual lease by 90 years at a peppercorn rent (s.42). The price (the 'premium') is set by statutory valuation formulas combining Term, Reversion and (where unexpired term is under 80 years) Marriage Value. Where premium or lease terms cannot be agreed, the Property Chamber decides under Form Leasehold 9. Landlords' statutory 'reasonable costs' of valuation and conveyancing are recoverable but can be challenged under Form Leasehold 10.
When the tribunal is the right forum
When the freeholder disputes qualifying status; when valuations cannot be agreed; when proposed lease terms are unreasonable; or when landlord cost schedules look inflated.
Legal tests the tribunal will apply
- Building qualification (collective): two or more flats, predominantly residential, non-resident landlord, commercial element under 25%
- Participant qualification: long-lease holders of qualifying flats, at least 50% participating
- Individual lease extension: long lease (originally over 21 years) and 2 years of registered ownership
- Valuation: Term + Reversion (+ Marriage Value where applicable) per Schedule 13 / Schedule 6
Evidence we'll need
- Counter-notice and the parties' valuations
- Comparable sales evidence (short vs long lease)
- Ground rent schedule and unexpired term
- Landlord's costs schedule (for Leasehold 10 challenges)
- Building plans and tenure schedule (collective claims)
Typical outcomes
- Determined premium
- Resolved lease terms (e.g. service charge clauses, alteration consents)
- Reduced landlord statutory costs
- Vesting order if landlord disappears or refuses to engage
Pitfalls we see
- The 80-year cliff — under 80 unexpired years, Marriage Value applies and the premium jumps sharply
- Process is rigid: missed notice deadlines can collapse a claim
- Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 is partially in force — check current valuation regime at application date
"Our freeholder served a counter-notice valuing the 78-year extension at £62,000 against our surveyor's £41,000. The block has no real comparables — what evidence wins this in tribunal?"
Ask the AI dashboard →Right to Manage & Appointment of Managers
RTM is a no-fault statutory right for qualifying leaseholders to take over building management via an RTM company. Where management has actually broken down, the tribunal can also appoint a manager under s.24 of the 1987 Act on fault grounds — bypassing the freeholder entirely.
When the tribunal is the right forum
RTM: when the freeholder serves a counter-notice disputing eligibility. s.24: where there is serious management failure — disrepair, financial mismanagement, unjustified high charges, poor compliance with statute.
Legal tests the tribunal will apply
- RTM building qualification: self-contained, predominantly residential, commercial use under 25%, qualifying tenants in at least two-thirds of flats
- RTM company qualification: limited by guarantee, prescribed articles, qualifying membership
- Notice formalities: Notice Inviting Participation, then Claim Notice — strict content and service rules
- s.24: 'just and convenient' to appoint a manager in the circumstances (fault threshold)
Evidence we'll need
- Claim notice and counter-notice
- Proof of qualifying tenant status (lease originally > 21 years)
- Tenure schedule of all flats in the block
- For s.24: evidence of management breaches, disrepair, accounts irregularities
- Proposed manager's CV and detailed management plan
Typical outcomes
- Tribunal declaration that the RTM company is entitled to acquire management
- Appointment of a manager on stated terms, with a defined management period
- Variation or discharge of an existing management order
Pitfalls we see
- A single notice formality error can end an RTM claim — freeholders' lawyers actively look for these
- s.24 manager appointment is exceptional — must show the freeholder cannot or will not manage properly
- Costs of failed RTM claims can be substantial as the freeholder's recoverable costs are limited but not zero
"Our freeholder ignored repairs for three years and the reserve fund vanished. RTM is messy because the block has commercial below — can we go straight for a s.24 manager?"
Ask the AI dashboard →Park Homes & Site Rules
Park home residents — those who own their mobile home but pay a pitch fee to live on a protected site — have statutory rights under the Mobile Homes Act framework, with the Property Chamber as the principal forum. Common applications cover annual pitch fee reviews (RPI-linked), changes to site rules, harassment by site owners, and disputes about sale and assignment of homes.
When the tribunal is the right forum
Pitch fee disputes (typically when site owner proposes above-RPI increases citing improvements), contested new site rules, where occupiers face unreasonable site practices, or where a site owner blocks a sale unreasonably.
Legal tests the tribunal will apply
- Pitch fee: presumption is RPI-only unless the site owner proves additional justification
- Site rules: must follow consultation process and be reasonable
- Sale block: site owner cannot unreasonably refuse approval of a buyer
Evidence we'll need
- Written statement of pitch terms (or implied terms if missing)
- Pitch fee review form and supporting RPI evidence
- Site rules and the consultation history
- Correspondence with site owner / agent
Typical outcomes
- Pitch fee set at RPI (or different figure determined by the tribunal)
- Site rules struck down or varied
- Order restraining harassment
- Sale unblocked
Pitfalls we see
- Park home cases move fast — short statutory windows for objections
- Mobile Homes Act 2013 changes apply only to qualifying sites and pitches
"The site owner has added £18/week to my pitch fee citing 'improvements' that are really repairs of broken roads. RPI was only 2.1%. Can the tribunal cut this back?"
Ask the AI dashboard →Rent & Tenancy Determinations
Most assured-shorthold possession lives in the County Court, but the Property Chamber still handles specific rent jurisdictions: regulated tenancy fair rents (registered with the Rent Officer and challengeable to tribunal), assured periodic tenancy rent increases under s.13 where the tenant refers the proposed new rent, and certain park home rents.
When the tribunal is the right forum
When a landlord serves a s.13 notice the tenant disputes; when a Rent Officer's fair rent figure is challenged; when a market rent comparison is contested.
Legal tests the tribunal will apply
- s.13: market rent the property could reasonably be expected to obtain on the open market
- Fair rent (Rent Act): market rent capped by scarcity adjustments
- Park home rents: as set by the pitch agreement and statute
Evidence we'll need
- Tenancy agreement
- s.13 notice
- Local market comparables (similar property type, condition, location)
Typical outcomes
- Rent confirmed, increased or reduced
- Backdating in line with the statutory rules
Pitfalls we see
- Strict referral windows — typically before the new rent takes effect
- Bring proper comparables — anecdote loses
"My assured periodic tenancy rent is being raised from £1,400 to £1,950 under a s.13 notice. The flat needs work. What evidence does the tribunal want?"
Ask the AI dashboard →