Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Applicant, Little Linguists Nursery School Limited, successfully challenged the Respondent (Pritash Vinodchandra Patel) under section 27A of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 regarding service charges. The Respondent failed to comply with Tribunal directions to provide required evidence and documentation by the deadline, leading to their debarment from defending the application. The Tribunal determined the service charges of £2432.02 were reasonable and payable, dismissing the Respondent's late evidence application and s.20C claim. The hearing was conducted remotely due to the pandemic.
Issues
- The tribunal assessed the reasonableness of service charges totaling £2432.02 claimed by Little Linguists Nursery School Limited under s.27A Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, determining them to be reasonable and payable after the Respondent failed to properly contest them.
- The tribunal considered whether the Respondent's late application to rely on a bundle of evidence filed and served out of time should be refused, given the lack of good reasons for non-compliance and the prejudice caused to the Applicant.
- The tribunal dismissed the Respondent's s.20C Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 application after finding no valid grounds to challenge the service charges, despite the Respondent having paid them 'under protest.'
- The tribunal determined if the Respondent's failure to comply with procedural directions (submitting required documents by 1 March 2021) warranted debarment from defending the application under the 2013 Rules.
Holdings
- The Respondent's application pursuant to s.20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is dismissed.
- The Application is determined summarily in favour of the Applicant. The Service charges set out in the application amounting to £2432.02 are determined to be reasonable and payable.
- The Respondent's oral application to rely on a bundle of evidence filed and served out of time is refused.
- The Respondent is debarred from defending the application.
Remedies
- The Respondent's oral application to rely on a bundle of evidence filed and served out of time is refused.
- The Respondent's application pursuant to s.20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is dismissed.
- The Respondent is debarred from defending the application.
- The Application is determined summarily in favour of the Applicant. The Service charges set out in the application amounting to £2432.02 are determined to be reasonable and payable.
Monetary Damages
2432.02
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied the principle that failure to comply with procedural directions, without good reason, justifies debarment from defending a case and summary determination in favor of the applicant. This was based on the respondent's non-compliance preventing effective trial and prejudicing the applicant.
Cited Statute
- Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
- Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013
Judge Name
Judge Mullin
Passage Text
- The Tribunal agrees entirely with the submissions made by the Applicant. The failure to comply with the directions was a serious breach because it effectively prevented the application from progressing in line with the directions which followed them. It meant that the Applicant did not know what the Respondent's case was until very shortly before the hearing of the application and meant that today's hearing could not be an effective trial because the Applicant had not had a sufficient period of time to consider and respond to it evidentially.
- The Tribunal gave its decision orally at the hearing on 17th May 2021. This written decision sets out its reasons. The Tribunal apologises to the parties for the length of time it has taken to produce this decision. It has been delayed due to an administrative oversight on the part of the Tribunal.
- It is not in the interests of justice to grant the Application. If the application were acceded to, it would necessitate an adjournment so that the rest of the directions could be complied with. Given the conduct of the Respondent thus far, the relatively modest sums which are the subject of the application and the undesirability of an adjournment and the consequent delay and expense to the parties and the Tribunal, it is not in the interests of justice for the application to be allowed.