North London tenants win war against £55,000 legal cost ambush by landlord

Landlord blocked from forcing leaseholders to pay £55k in legal costs via service charges

A landlord’s decade-long legal campaign to offload £55,500 in legal costs onto tenants has been emphatically blocked by the Upper Tribunal in a blistering judgment exposing the limits of service charge clauses.

In a case described as “depressingly extensive” by Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke, Triplark Ltd attempted to reclaim hefty legal expenses from leaseholders of purpose-built flats in north London. The proceedings, dragging on for over ten years, culminated in a dramatic ruling that dealt a crushing blow to the landlord’s hopes of reimbursement.

At the heart of the legal row was a clause buried in the leasehold agreement—an ambiguous reference to “ancillary costs” connected to the management of the building. Triplark Ltd argued this gave them carte blanche to reclaim a range of legal fees. These included general legal advice about the building, recovery of rent and service charge arrears, litigation costs incurred in those recoveries, and even costs arising from proceedings against third parties.

But Judge Cooke was unmoved.

She acknowledged that managing a residential property could involve more than just collecting rent, and didn’t dismiss the idea that legal advice might, in certain cases, qualify as a management cost. However, she made clear that not all legal costs fall within that scope—especially not full-blown litigation.

“The word ‘ancillary’ implies something incidental and subordinate,” she stated in her ruling. “Litigation is a step beyond management. I am quite sure it cannot be covered by that term.”

The First Tier Tribunal had already dismissed the landlord’s arguments, refusing to allow any of the £55,500 in legal costs to be recovered through the tenants’ service charges. Triplark Ltd then escalated the matter to the Upper Tribunal, hoping for a reversal. But the appeal ended in failure.

Cooke reiterated that the lease’s wording lacked the clarity required to justify the landlord’s sweeping interpretation. The tribunal, she said, could not simply infer that such a broad array of legal costs could be shifted to leaseholders without specific examples or clearer language.

Despite the ruling, the judge left a narrow window open: she noted that if the landlord had provided distinct examples of legal advice directly tied to building management—excluding litigation—they might have stood a chance at partial recovery. But in this instance, they failed to make that case.

The saga highlights a growing legal battleground between landlords and tenants over service charges, and underlines how vital it is for lease agreements to spell out cost responsibilities with precision.

Over the past decade, leaseholders in this case have endured multiple rounds of litigation, with the final decision now firmly in their favour. Cooke’s judgment serves as a warning shot to landlords attempting to recoup legal expenses by passing them off as management overheads.

Legal experts say the ruling sets a precedent that could ripple across similar disputes, especially as service charge battles become more frequent amid rising property management costs.

For now, leaseholders at the centre of the Triplark Ltd v Howard case can breathe a sigh of relief. They won’t be footing the bill for a £55,000 legal crusade they never asked for—and never authorised.