Judge Bernadette MacQueenGerard Smith, MRICS FAAVPaul Futter (Counsel), instructed by Trowers & Hamlins LLP for the ApplicantDate 28 January 2026Hearing 2026-01-15Property: SL2 1DFType of application: pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Judge Bernadette MacQueen
DECISION
2 Decisions of the Tribunal(1) The Tribunal determines that the sums charged for personal gas usage, totalling £1,609.81, are payable by the Applicant in respect of the service charges for the years 2020/2021 to 2024/2025, and an estimated amount of £538.37 is payable for the service charge year 2025/2026, as set out in the table at paragraph 49 of this decision.(2) The Tribunal makes the determinations as set out under the various headings in this decision.(3) The Tribunal does not make an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as there is no provision that enables the Respondent to pass on their costs of these Tribunal proceedings through any service charge.(4) The Tribunal does not make an order under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 for an order which would reduce or extinguish the tenant’s liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs as there is no provision for the Respondent to make such a charge in the tenancy agreement.(5) The Tribunal determines that the Respondent shall reimburse the Applicant the amount that he paid to the Tribunal by way of hearing fee, namely £227. The Respondent shall pay this amount to the Applicant within 28 days of the date of this Decision. The Application[1]The Applicant sought a determination pursuant to section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) as to his service charges for the supply of gas from 2021/22 to date. Within his application form, the Applicant included a challenge in respect of future years. In the Directions made by the Tribunal dated 14 August 2025, the Tribunal had stated that the Tribunal could only determine what was payable under the tenancy agreement but that a determination could include matters of principle, which may affect further years.[2]The Applicant also sought an order that the Respondent’s costs of the proceedings are not to be considered as relevant costs for the purposes of service charges (section 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) and of an order reducing or extinguishing the Applicant’s liability to pay an 3 administration charge in respect of litigation costs (Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002).[3]The Tribunal had stated that this matter was suitable for a paper determination and had made Directions for the exchange of evidence and the preparation of a hearing bundle to facilitate this paper determination.[4]The Judge had considered the application on the papers, but had found that there was a factual dispute between the parties as to whether or not the Property had a gas meter. The Applicant had stated that there was a gas meter and had supplied photographs to support this, whereas the Respondent, specifically, the 2nd statement of Mary Swaine dated 9 October 2025 (page 533 of the bundle) had stated: “the Respondent confirms that the individual properties do not have gas meters and therefore the Applicant’s individual usage is unknown. The meter the Applicant refers to is an electricity meter”.[5]In light of this factual dispute, the Judge had determined that the matter could not be dealt with as a paper determination and had made further Directions. In particular, parties had been directed to attempt to reach an agreed position as to whether the Property had a functioning gas meter by way of an agreed joint statement.[6]The parties had been unable to agree a joint statement; however, both parties had agreed that there was a gas meter in place at the Property and that it was capable of recording usage. The Hearing[7]The Applicant appeared in person at the hearing and the Respondent was represented by Paul Fuller, Counsel, instructed by Trowers & Hamlins LLP. Joanna Zadlo, Service Charge Accountant employed by the Respondent, attended and gave evidence to the Tribunal.[8]The Respondent had prepared a bundle of documents for the hearing. Additionally, a supplemental bundle had been prepared that contained correspondence that the Applicant had sent to the Respondent and the Tribunal. With the agreement of all parties, the Tribunal considered both bundles. 4 The Background[9]The property, 109 Furnival Avenue, Slough, Berkshire, SL2 1DF (the Property), which was the subject of this application, was described as a one bedroom self-contained second floor flat situated in one of three blocks owned by the Respondent.[10]The Respondent confirmed that block 1 was made up on 101A-115 Furnival Avenue and that this was the block in which the Property was situated (“Block 1”). This Block 1 was made up of 14 individual properties and a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) with 8 occupants. Block 2 was made up on 121-135D Furnival Avenue (“Block 2”), and block 3 was made up of 143-147/157A – 161 (“Block 3”). Together these three blocks (“the Blocks”) comprised 78 flats.[11]The Applicant was the tenant of the Property under an Assured Tenancy Agreement dated 14 August 2006 (the “Tenancy Agreement”) made between Furnival Housing Limited and the Applicant. A copy of this was within the bundle at pages 29 to 40. The specific provisions of the Tenancy Agreement will be referred to below, where appropriate.[12]The Tenancy Agreement required the Applicant to pay to the Respondent service charges. The Respondent confirmed that the service charge year ran from April each year and that an estimate of service charges for the forthcoming service charge year was provided to the tenants in or around February of each year. The Respondent stated that, following the end of the service charge year, they completed a reconciliation process and provided tenants with a Service Charge Actual Statement in September or October of each year. Any underpayments or overpayments were carried forward, and the Service Charge Estimate for the subsequent year was adjusted accordingly. The Respondent confirmed that the 2025/26 service charges were estimated charges as the reconciliation process would not be completed until the end of the service charge year.[13]The Respondent provided copies of the Service Charge Estimates and Service Charge Actual Statements within the bundle for the years in dispute at pages 45 to 113 and 114 to 150 respectively.[14]As stated above, the service charges that were the subject of this application were for the supply of gas. The Respondent had included the gas bills that they had received for the years in dispute at pages 151 to 410 of the bundle. 5 Communal Gas Charges[15]The Applicant’s application was initially brought in relation to both the charge that was made for communal gas as well as the personal gas charge. The Applicant’s position was that the Property should not be charged for communal gas as the only communal areas in the blocks were the stairwells and corridors which did not have any gas supply.[16]Mary Swaine, Assistant Director of Governance and Corporate Compliance employed by the Respondent, had stated in her witness statement of 5 September 2025 (pages 25 to 27 of the bundle) that in or around April 2025, the Respondent had identified that there was a potential unfairness in the way the apportionment of the communal gas charge was calculated. The Respondent accepted the Applicant’s position that the only communal areas within the Blocks were the stairwells and corridors and that these areas did not have any gas supply to them. In light of this, the Respondent recognised that the only properties within the Blocks that benefitted from communal gas were the HMOs. The Respondent therefore recalculated the communal gas charge for the Blocks so that only properties within the Blocks that were HMOs were charged for communal gas. This meant that the Property would not be charged for communal gas.[17]The Respondent confirmed that the Applicant had been refunded the charges that were paid for communal gas for the years 2018/19 to 2023/24 and that a refund would be made for 2024/25 charges.[18]The issue of communal gas charges was therefore no longer an issue before the Tribunal. Issue in Dispute - Individual Gas Charges Background[19]In relation to individual gas charges, the Respondent confirmed that they had received bills from three gas meters that recorded gas usage for the three Blocks (“the Primary Meters”).[20]As set out above, it was agreed by both parties that the Property had a gas meter within the Property that was capable of recording usage. 6 The Tenancy Agreement[21]Under clause 1(3) of the Tenancy Agreement, the Respondent (called “the Association” within the Tenancy Agreement) had covenanted with the Applicant to supply certain services to the Property, including the provision of gas.[22]Clauses 1(3)(iii) - (vi) of the Tenancy Agreement provided that: “(iii) The Association may charge for services on the basis either of reasonable costs incurred during the previous accounting period or of estimates for the current or next accounting period. The difference between any estimate and the actual cost may be carried forward. (iv) … (v) The cost of service shall be apportioned equally between all the properties concerned or divided in such other proportions as the Association considers appropriate acting reasonably. (vi) The Association shall provide an annual account of the costs incurred, the service charges due, and the amount held in the sinking fund, if any. Issue in Dispute – Individual Gas Charges The Applicant’s Position[23]The Applicant submitted that the apportionment method used by the Respondent was not reasonable as the Respondent had failed to show the actual gas usage therefore rendering the apportionment between the properties as arbitrary. The Applicant submitted that the individual circumstances of tenants that might increase or decrease individual gas usage were not taken into account. Specifically, the Applicant submitted that the Respondent’s apportionment method did not take into account factors including time of gas use, the seasons, whether the building was insulated and occupants’ length of time at the Property. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent’s apportionment method resulted in fluctuations and overbilling and did not account for the fact that some one bed properties had one occupant and others had two. It was the Applicant’s position that the existence of a gas meter which recorded usage in his Property meant that the Respondent should charge tenants for the actual amount of gas he used. 7[24]The Applicant further submitted that the gas charges for his individual use were not reasonable as his individual gas charges were high and did not accurately reflect his usage. It was the Applicant’s position that by charging him for the amount of gas he actually used by using the meter reading in his Property this would be avoided.[25]Additionally, the Applicant told the Tribunal that given the existence of the gas meter in his Property that measured his usage, he should be free to use a gas supplier of his own choice. To this end, the Applicant sought an order that he be permitted to select his own gas supplier and pay that supplier directly. However, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make such an order and instead is limited to a determination as to the payability of the disputed service charge.[26]The Applicant also submitted that there was a breach of regulations such as Consumer Rights Act 2015, Gas Act 1986, Ofgem licence conditions, Utilities Act 2000 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. However, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the payability and reasonableness of the disputed gas charges and therefore the Tribunal did not consider these issues. The Respondent’s Position[27]The Respondent submitted that the Tenancy Agreement provided a discretion for the Respondent to determine the basis upon which the cost of services were apportioned between the properties within the Blocks as the Respondent, acting reasonably, deemed appropriate.[28]Mary Swaine, in her witness statement at pages 25 and 26 of the bundle, had set out how the gas charges were calculated. She had confirmed that the apportionment method that the Respondent used for personal gas charges had a factoring system which was based on the number of bedrooms. A one bed property/bedsit had a factor of 2.5, a two bedroom property had a factor of 3, and three bedroom property had a factor of 3.5 and so on. The Respondent calculated the gas service charge by taking the total cost, dividing it by the total factor of all properties in the block and then multiplying by the individual property’s factor. The Respondent confirmed that, as all of the properties within the Blocks were bedsits or one bedroom properties, they all had the same factor and therefore in practice this meant that the total amounts for the gas charge were split evenly between the properties in the Blocks. 8[29]Mary Swaine had summarised the calculation that was made for the years 2021- 2022 to 2024-2025 as follows:(i) The total annual gas bill for all of the three Blocks was calculated;(ii) The total annual gas bill was then apportioned as 30% for communal supply and 70% for individual supply;(iii) The communal and individual supplies were then split equally between the flats in Block 1, 2 and 3 (each of the flats in the Blocks being bedsits or one bedroom properties).[30]Mary Swaine had further stated that in or around April 2025, the Respondent had undertaken an exercise to determine which of the Charging Meters served which Block. Through this investigation, the Respondent had determined that Block 1, where the Property was situated, was served by meter number M025K0068913D6. Additionally, as set out above, as part of this review, the Respondent had determined that the Property would no longer be charged for communal gas.[31]Mary Swaine had therefore confirmed that the gas charges for the Property would now be calculated as follows:(i) The total annual gas bill for Block 1 would be calculated from readings from meter number M025K0068913D6;(ii) The total annual gas bill would then be apportioned, as 30% for communal supply and 70% for individual supply;(iii) The cost of individual supplies would then be split equally between all of the flats in Block 1 meaning that the Applicant would be charged 1/14th of the total amount for the individual cost. 9(iv) The cost of communal supply would be split only between those properties let as HMOs (which did not include the Property).[32]In her oral evidence to the Tribunal, Joanna Zadlo, Service Charge Accountant, confirmed that it was the Respondent’s position that this apportionment approach was reasonable. She confirmed that using the number of bedrooms to provide a factoring system had been in place for a number of years and further that it was a reasonable approach as the more people in a property, the higher the gas usage was likely to be.[33]Joanna Zadlo confirmed that the Respondent had received gas bills that related to the three Primary Meters and confirmed that although the Respondent now accepted that there was a gas meter at the Property, the Respondent had never received a bill relating to this meter. Further, Joanna Zadlo noted that the Applicant had not provided any bills from the meter within his property to the Tribunal. It was therefore her view that, although the meter was capable of recording usage, it was not a meter through which a gas supplier calculated bills.[34]Joanna Zadlo further stated that it would not be possible for the Respondent to use individual meters within the properties to charge for gas usage. This was because unless each individual meter was read at the same time, the figures would be inaccurate. It would not be practicable for the Respondent to read all of the meters within the flats as well as the three primary meters at the same time so as to be able to calculate usage per flat. If the individual property meters were read on different days, then the charges would never to correct. Given that it would be impossible to access all properties at the same time, it would not be possible for the Respondent to charge using this method. One way to read the meters in individual flats could be to move the meters outside of the properties so there would be no access issues and therefore the meters would be able to be read at the same time. However, Joanna Zadlo confirmed that this would be at a significant expense to the Respondent and would not be a proper use of their charitable funds.[35]Further, and in any event, Joanna Zadlo stated that it was not clear whether every property within the Blocks had a working meter or whether the meters were connected to an individual supply.[36]It was therefore the Respondent’s position that the gas charges were apportioned by reading the three Primary Meters and then apportioning 10 the costs as set out above, which the Respondent submitted was the most reasonable way to apportion the costs and was in accordance with the Tenancy Agreement. Tribunal Decision – Individual Gas Charges[37]Section 27A of the 1985 Act sets out the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which is to determine whether service charges are payable. Clause 3(i) of the Tenancy Agreement provided that the Respondent shall provide services to the Property, which included gas, and that the tenant shall pay a service charge. The Tribunal therefore finds that the provision of gas was payable as a service charge under the Tenancy Agreement. Whilst the Applicant’s position was that he wished to enter into a direct contract with a gas supplier rather than paying gas charges to the Respondent, it was not disputed that the Tenancy Agreement provided that personal gas charges were payable under the Tenancy Agreement.[38]Clause 3(v) of the Tenancy Agreement provided that the Respondent shall apportion the charges equally between all the properties concerned or divided in such other proportions as the Association considers appropriate acting reasonably”[39]The Respondent set out how they apportioned service charges and this is set out at in the section entitled “The Respondent’s Position” (above). Specifically, the Respondent’s apportionment method included a factoring element that was dependent on how many bedrooms a property had. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s evidence that this apportionment was reasonable. It provided a method which took into account the occupancy of a property. With that said, the Tribunal notes that, because all of the properties in the Blocks were one bedroom flats/bedsits, the reality was that this factoring meant that the gas charges were divided equally between all of the properties.[40]The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s position that the apportionment method was a proportionate and reasonable approach that avoided the time-consuming and costly exercise of calculating the precise supply to individual properties. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Joanna Zadlo that to calculate apportionment based on meter readings from within properties, the Respondent would have to take a readings in all properties at the same time and this was not possible.[41]The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s position that this method was unfair as some one bedroom properties could have more than one 11 person living at the property and therefore use more gas. The Tribunal finds that if the Respondent based their apportionment calculation on thenumber of occupants, the administrative burden in keeping records of occupancy up to date would be heavy, unrealistic and unreasonable.[42]Further, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s position that the apportionment method used by the Respondent failed to take into account time of use, seasons, whether the building was insulated and the occupants’ length of time at the Property. The Respondent told the Tribunal that the gas service charge was calculated on a yearly basis and so within that year all seasons were considered. Further, the gas bill was divided equally between all of the properties in each block. In terms of the length of occupancy, it may be the case that some occupants used gas for a longer period than others, but the apportionment method that the Respondent has chosen to use divided the total bill between all properties. As set out above, the Tribunal finds that for the Respondent to be required to calculate individual use would be implausible and unreasonable.[43]The Applicant’s position was that the apportionment method used by the Respondent should allow for individual usage taken from actual meter readings within individual properties. However, the question for the Tribunal to determine is whether the landlord acted in accordance with the Tenancy Agreement rather than to evaluate apportionment methods that could be used by the Respondent. As set out above, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent’s apportionment method was reasonable in accordance with the Tenancy Agreement. In any event, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s position that it would have been implausible for all of the meters in the Blocks to be read at the same time so that the apportionment could be accurate.[44]With regard to the Applicant’s position that he should have been able to enter into a direct contract with a gas supplier, this was not envisaged under the Tenancy Agreement. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make any provision which would allow the Applicant to be able to enter into a contract with a supplier.[45]The Tribunal notes that the Respondent conducted a view of the charges in or around April 2025. This resulted in changes to the way that the communal charge was calculated (as set out above) and also identified the exact meter used to calculate usage for Block 1. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s position that they acted to ensure that the gas charges were calculated as accurately as possible once they became aware. There was no basis for the Tribunal to determine that the apportionment had 12 been or had become unfair or otherwise inconsistent with the Tenancy Agreement.[46]The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that, from the evidence that was presented to the Tribunal, the apportionment method that the Respondent used was in accordance with the terms of the Tenancy Agreement and was reasonable throughout the period in dispute.[47]Turning to the issue of whether the individual gas charges were reasonably incurred, or in the case of the estimated charge for the year 2025/26, reasonable, the Tribunal finds that the gas charges were reasonably incurred and that the estimated charge is reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s evidence that they employed an energy broker to manage utility supplies and contracts for their housing stock and that this broker monitored the market and provided advice to the Respondent. Further, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s evidence that they chose the best available tariffs for energy usage and selected the cheapest tariff available to them.[48]The Tribunal was not provided with any comparable cost of gas supply by other companies by the Applicant or any alternative quotations based on his individual use as calculated from the meter within the Property.[49]The Tribunal therefore finds the following charges payable: Year Amount 2021/2022 £81.55 2022/2023 £487.71 2023/2024 £563.45 2024/2025 £346.57 2025/2026 £538.37 (estimated)[50]The Tribunal notes that many of the gas bills that were provided within the bundle contained estimated readings. The Tribunal would encourage the Respondent to ensure that actual readings are provided to the gas 13 supplier on a regular basis so that annual service charge calculations can be based on accurate meter readings. Application under s.20C and Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002[51]The Applicant sought an order that the Respondent’s costs of the proceedings are not to be considered as relevant costs for the purpose of service charges (section 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985), and an order reducing or extinguishing the Applicant’s liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs (Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002).[52]The Respondent submitted that there is no express provision within the Tenancy Agreement for the Respondent to recover legal costs, either as a service charge or administrative cost.[53]The Tribunal therefore determines that an order under section 20C and paragraph 5A are not required. Refund of Fees[54]The Tribunal determines that the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant the sum of £227 within 28 days from the date of this decision. This is the amount that the Applicant paid to the Tribunal by way of hearing fee. A hearing was held because the Respondent erroneously stated in their written evidence to the Tribunal that there was not a gas meter at the Property. As a result of this, a hearing was necessary and the Applicant was required to pay a hearing fee.[55]Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent should not be required to pay this amount to the Applicant because the Tribunal could have converted the hearing back to a paper hearing once the existence of a gas meter was confirmed. However, the Tribunal does not accept this submission given that there was a factual dispute before the Tribunal which had arisen as a result of an error made in a written statement provided by a witness of the Respondent. Further, and in any event, the Tribunal did not receive an application from the Respondent seeking to convert the hearing back to a paper hearing. Name: Judge Bernadette MacQueen Date: 28 January 2026 14 Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the Firsttier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).