Keith Howard Barton v Platform Housing Limited

Keith Howard Barton v Platform Housing Limited

The service charge payable by the appellant does not vary according to the relevant costs incurred by the landlord; it is set annually by notice without any requirement to relate to actual or estimated costs, and there is no reconciliation process. Therefore, it is not a 'service charge' within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 27A to determine its amount.

Parties
Appellant: Keith Howard Barton; Respondent: Platform Housing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant – Service Charges – Assured Periodic Tenancy Appeal / Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (property Chamber) to Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Assured Tenancies, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Interpretation of Section 18(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Landlord and Tenant Law Housing Law Service Charges Assured Tenancies Jurisdiction of Tribunal Interpretation of Section 18(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Howard Barton

Appellant

Platform Housing Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant – Service Charges – Assured Periodic Tenancy Appeal / Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (property Chamber) to Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the service charge payable by the appellant is a 'service charge' within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 27A of the 1985 Act to determine the amount of the service charge

Ratio Decidendi

The service charge payable by the appellant does not vary according to the relevant costs incurred by the landlord; it is set annually by notice without any requirement to relate to actual or estimated costs, and there is no reconciliation process. Therefore, it is not a 'service charge' within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 27A to determine its amount.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal was correct in concluding it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 27A of the 1985 Act.