• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Service charge demands: a reminder of key principles

In our insight last year, which can be found here, we summarised the decision of No. 1 West India Quay (Residential) Limited v. East Tower Apartments Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1119.

The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which recently upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision, and confirmed that a service charge demand in respect of long leasehold residential premises must be a contractually valid demand for the purposes of Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”).

The Facts

The dispute concerned a mixed use building comprising a hotel and residential flats.  East Tower held leases of 42 residential flats.  The electricity charging structure in the leases was unusual and extremely complex, such that it had been the subject of a long-running dispute between the parties.  In an earlier Upper Tribunal decision, it had been determined that electricity charges were recoverable as a service charge.  The consequence of that decision was that electricity charges had not been correctly demanded in accordance with the terms of the lease and the argument was raised that the sums were irrecoverable as they had not been demanded within 18 months of being incurred.


Section 20B(1) of the 1985 Act imposes a limitation period for the recovery of service charges from long leaseholders of residential premises and costs are not recoverable if they were incurred more than 18 months before they were demanded.  However, that restriction does not apply if the tenant has been informed in writing under Section 20B(2) of the 1985 Act within 18 months of the costs being incurred, that those costs have been incurred and are recoverable from the tenant

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal held that it was bound by an earlier decision in Skelton v. DBS Homes (Kings Hill) Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 1139 and it was necessary for a landlord to issue a contractually valid demand in accordance with the terms of the lease.  In this case, the landlord was prevented from recovering the electricity charges because they had not been demanded within 18 months of falling due and unfortunately, no protective Section 20B(2) Notice had been served. 


This decision confirms the position as it was understood to be and does not create any change in practice.  Landlords and managing agents should continue to ensure that they follow the terms of the lease carefully in respect of demands for service charge and serve a contractually valid service charge demand within 18 months’ of sums being incurred.  If they are prevented from doing so for any reason, they should serve a Notice under Section 20B(2) of the 1985 Act to protect their position, otherwise the 18 month limitation period may affect recovery.

This article was written by Laura Bushaway, for more information please contact them or your usual Charles Russell Speechlys contact. 

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2024

    Charlotte Ford


  • LIDW: Is arbitration an effective process for disputes involving state interests: a panel discussion of concerns raised in Nigeria v. P&IDL [2023] EWHC 2638

    Richard Kiddell


  • LIDW: An Era of Constant Change – an event to explore the General Counsel’s role in delivering sustainable growth whilst managing global ESG risks

    Caroline Greenwell


  • LIDW: Liability imposed on UK Directors and how to mitigate the risks

    Claudine Morgan


  • Freight and logistics – still on the agenda

    Sadie Pitman

    Quick Reads

  • The UK government updates on timings for Sustainability Disclosure Requirements components

    Megan Gray

    Quick Reads

  • Disputes Matters: International Arbitration

    Thomas R. Snider


  • CDR Magazine quotes Stewart Hey on the cum-ex scandal

    Stewart Hey

    In the Press

  • A Glimpse into Saudi Arabia's Tourism and Leisure Vision 2023 and Beyond

    Reem Al Mahroos

    Quick Reads

  • Using Generative AI and staying on the right side of the law

    Rebecca Steer


  • World Trademark Review quotes Charlotte Duly on a recent Supreme Court director liability ruling

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • FE News quotes Adam Kyte on the MAC's review of the graduate visa route

    Adam Kyte

    In the Press

  • Liquidated Damages – A comparison between the common law approach and the UAE Civil Code.

    Glenn Bull


  • The Building Safety Act 2022 – Considerations for Real Estate Lenders

    James Walton


  • The Guardian and City AM quote Ashwin Pillay on Anglo American rejecting a second takeover bid from BHP

    Ashwin Pillay

    In the Press

  • FT Ignites Europe quotes Anne-Marie Balfour on working hours and potential disputes

    Anne-Marie Balfour

    In the Press

  • CDR Magazine quotes Charlotte Duly on the inter partes process for trade mark opposition

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • Wills for Brits in Switzerland (or with assets here)

    Michael Wells-Greco


  • The Law Society Gazette quotes Stephen Fairweather on the benefits of using LinkedIn

    In the Press

  • Property Patter: Building and Fire Safety Miniseries - part 2

    Richard Flenley


Back to top