The client is the long‑leaseholder of a residential flat purchased as an investment property several years ago. The freehold and management responsibilities for the building are held by a management company. A dispute arose between the parties after the client withheld service charge payments due to ongoing disrepair at the property which she maintained the freeholder had failed to address.
The freeholder issued proceedings in the County Court for non‑payment of service charges. The matter was transferred to the client’s local court and subsequently to the First‑tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The Tribunal determined that the client was liable for a limited sum in historic service charge arrears and an administration fee. The client’s counterclaim for damages arising from the disrepair was left to be determined by the County Court.
The County Court later found in the client’s favour and ordered the freeholder to pay a substantial sum in damages, together with interest and costs, by a specified deadline. Despite this, the freeholder has failed to make payment. The client sought advice on how to enforce the judgment and recover the sums owed.
The central issue is the freeholder’s failure to comply with a valid court order requiring payment of damages, interest and costs. The client requires guidance on the most effective enforcement method. Several enforcement routes are available, each with different timescales, procedural requirements and likelihood of success. The client has access to the freeholder’s banking details, which may assist in selecting the most efficient option. Consideration must also be given to the freeholder’s status as a management company and the likelihood that it holds readily accessible funds.
Counsel reviewed the available enforcement mechanisms and advised that, in the circumstances, the most effective and proportionate option would be to pursue a third‑party debt order. This is because the client holds the freeholder’s banking information and the freeholder, as a management company responsible for multiple properties, is likely to have funds passing through its accounts. A third‑party debt order would allow the court to freeze the relevant account and direct payment of the judgment sum to the client.
Other enforcement options were considered, including warrants of control, charging orders, attachment of earnings and winding‑up proceedings. While each has potential utility, they are likely to involve longer timescales, greater procedural complexity or reduced prospects of immediate recovery. Counsel therefore recommended proceeding with the third‑party debt order as the primary enforcement route. The client will receive a follow‑up communication setting out the anticipated costs and next steps required to initiate enforcement. Counsel remains available to assist with the application and any subsequent enforcement action.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy