A leaseholder has lost a property tribunal against Lewisham Council and has been ordered to pay almost £30,000 in service charges, after appearing to have used artificial intelligence (AI) to argue his case.
David Jeffs owes £29,886.09 in service charges after a First-Tier Property Tribunal ruled against his claims that the council had failed to properly consult him on major works to the building. The works included the erection of scaffolding, the replacement of windows, roofing works, and communal repairs and maintenance. The works began in June 2023 and were completed by December 2023.
Mr Jeffs argued that the consultation process under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was not complied with because he never received a copy of the Notice of Estimates, which details estimated costs of proposed works. He claimed he was excluded from the 30-day consultation period, causing him "significant prejudice" as he did not have the opportunity to review estimates, nominate alternatives, or influence costs. He argued the notice should have been sent to his correspondence address in Colchester, Essex, rather than the buy-to-let property on Greystead Road in Lewisham, which he rents out. He said the council was aware of his Colchester address and had used it for other documents, and contended that the invoiced amount was not payable, believing the total costs recoverable should be capped at £250.
However, Lewisham Council said it did comply with consultation requirements under section 20 of the 1985 Act and the Service Charges Regulations 2003. The council stated it sent the Notice of Estimates for the works on November 15, 2022 to both Mr Jeffs' Colchester address and his Lewisham property. It also sent the Notice of Intention for a long-term agreement for planned and major works on November 15, 2019, and the Notice of Proposal of a Contractor on March 1, 2021.
According to a Tribunal decision on March 16, 2026, Mr Jeffs accepted that he had received the Notice of Intention and the service charge invoice dated October 8, 2024 at his correspondence address. He said he did not know if copies of any notices or invoices had been sent to the leasehold address as he had not received anything. In his evidence, Mr Jeffs said he was not aware of what happened to post delivered to the Lewisham property and had no system to retrieve correspondence sent there.
Non-Existent Case May Have Been Invented by AI
The Tribunal heard that Mr Jeffs cited various cases in support of his argument, but the cases were either not relevant or did not contain the details he claimed. One case was reportedly non-existent. When questioned, Mr Jeffs said he had done online research but it appeared that either the searches or AI had invented or adapted case law to support his argument. He was asked if he had read or had copies of the cases he referred to, to which he said he had not read them and did not have copies.
The Tribunal heard from Crystle Miller, on behalf of the council, who was responsible for collating and sending notices, including the Notice of Estimates. She confirmed she had sent the Notice of Estimates to both the leasehold address and the Colchester address, as shown on the Proof of Posting document. The Tribunal was also shown a table containing responses from other leaseholders, to whom notices had been sent to both property and correspondence addresses.
Judge Purcell and Judge N Carr said they were satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Notice of Estimates were sent to both Mr Jeffs' Lewisham property and his Colchester address. They concluded: "The Tribunal finds that the Notice of Estimates was sent to both the property address and correspondence address whether or not the applicant [Mr Jeffs] actually received the notice. The Tribunal takes the view on the evidence before it that the Notice of Estimates was validly served and the Section 20 consultation procedure was complied with."
