Under s. 27A, a tribunal determines if a service charge is payable, by whom, and the amount. Payment does not mean agreement, and contrary terms are void.
Official text
·
LTA 1985 s. 27A — United Kingdom
An application may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to— the person by whom it is payable, the person to whom it is payable, the amount which is payable, the date at or by which it is payable, and the manner in which it is payable. Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. An application may also be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to— the person by whom it would be payable, the person to whom it would be payable, the amount which would be payable, the date at or by which it would be payable, and the manner in which it would be payable. No application under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which— has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, has been the subject of determination by a court, or has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment. An agreement by the tenant of a dwelling (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination— in a particular manner, or on particular evidence, of any question which may be the subject of an application under subsection (1) or (3). The jurisdiction conferred on the appropriate tribunal in respect of any matter by virtue of this section is in addition to any jurisdiction of a court in respect of the matter.
Section 27A is the door into the tribunal. An application may be made for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, by whom, to whom, how much, by when and in what manner. Subsection (2) makes the point that catches most people out in the right direction: the application can be made "whether or not any payment has been made". A leaseholder who has already paid under protest has not lost the right to have the charge determined.
Subsection (3) adds a prospective jurisdiction that is genuinely useful. The tribunal can be asked whether a service charge would be payable if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of a specified description - so a leaseholder facing a proposed programme of major works can have the question decided before the money is spent rather than after.
Subsection (4) sets the limits. No application may be made about a matter that has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, that has been or is to be referred to arbitration under a post-dispute arbitration agreement, or that has already been determined by a court or by an arbitral tribunal. Subsection (5) then rescues the leaseholder who paid to avoid trouble: "the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment". Subsection (6) makes void any agreement, other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement, purporting to fix how or on what evidence such a question is to be determined - so a lease clause making the landlord's surveyor's certificate conclusive does not oust the tribunal.
When it applies
A leaseholder who wants a specific year's service charge account tested line by line.
Someone who paid a disputed demand under protest to avoid forfeiture proceedings and now wants it decided.
A block facing a proposed major works programme who want the recoverability decided in advance.
A lease containing a clause making the landlord's certificate final and binding.
A dispute about which of several leaseholders is liable for a particular cost.
What this section does not say
×It does not decide ground rent, and it is not a general jurisdiction over everything in the lease. The subject matter is service charges as defined in section 18.
×It is not blocked by having paid. Subsection (5) says payment alone is not agreement or admission.
×It does not reopen matters already determined by a court, or already agreed or admitted by the tenant.
×It is not an enforcement mechanism. The tribunal determines what is payable; recovering money already paid, or resisting a county court claim, are separate steps.
×It does not award costs against the landlord as of course. Preventing the landlord's costs coming back through the service charge is a separate application under section 20C.
Worked examples
Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.
Illustrative example
A leaseholder pays a disputed demand in full because the freeholder's letter mentions forfeiture. Afterwards the freeholder says that paying settled the matter and there is nothing left to determine.
How the wording applies
Subsection (2) allows an application whether or not any payment has been made, and subsection (5) puts it beyond argument: a tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made a payment. The fact that would genuinely bar the application is different - subsection (4) excludes matters actually agreed or admitted, referred to post-dispute arbitration, or already determined - so what matters is whether anything was signed or conceded beyond the payment itself.
How the parties settled it
Both agree the payment was made under protest and without admission, and the freeholder produces the supporting invoices within a month so the disputed items can be narrowed before any application.
Illustrative example
A block faces a proposed programme of external works costing several thousand pounds a flat. The leaseholders would rather know now whether the cost is recoverable under their leases than find out after it is spent.
How the wording applies
Subsection (3) gives a prospective jurisdiction: the tribunal can be asked whether a service charge would be payable if costs of a specified description were incurred. The fact that makes this worth using is sequencing - the question is decided before the money is spent rather than after, which is a different position from challenging a bill. It does not replace consultation under section 20, which runs alongside.
How the parties settled it
The freeholder agrees to defer the works for one consultation cycle and to fund an independent specification, and the leaseholders agree to pay the agreed figure for the works the specification confirms are within the lease.
Illustrative example
A lease says the landlord's certificate of the service charge is final and binding. The freeholder relies on that clause to refuse to justify a large increase.
How the wording applies
Section 27A is the door into the tribunal for whether a service charge is payable and, if so, by whom, to whom, how much and when. The fact that clause runs into is the statutory scheme itself: the jurisdiction is conferred by statute over service charges as defined in section 18, and the limits on it are the ones in subsection (4), not ones a lease supplies. What still has to be checked is that the demand is a service charge within section 18 in the first place.
How the parties settled it
The freeholder agrees to open the accounts and supporting invoices to inspection and not to rely on the certificate clause, and the leaseholders agree to raise any remaining objections within six weeks of inspection.
Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the Acts of Parliament that apply in England and Wales.
We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.
This page reproduces the text of LTA 1985 s. 27A in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in England and Wales.