A guide for mortgage brokers navigating service charge CCJ cases​

 

 

There's a file on your desk. Or maybe it's just sitting in the back of your mind. A client you had to decline three months ago. Perfect income, decent deposit, stable employment. Everything lined up. And then you ran the credit check.

Service charge CCJ. £3,800. Registered eighteen months ago.

​

 

​

You know how this goes. You've probably explained it a dozen times this month alone. "I'm sorry, but with that CCJ on your file, we can't proceed. You'll need to wait until it's been satisfied for at least twelve months, possibly longer. Maybe try again in a couple of years."

​

And then you watched them leave. Saw that look—the one that says their life just got put on hold for something they don't fully understand. They're not avoiding responsibility. They're genuinely confused about what happened. But there's nothing you can do. The lender criteria are the lender criteria. You move on to the next application.

​

Except it's been bothering you, hasn't it? Because this client wasn't like the others. When you asked about the CCJ, they didn't dodge or make excuses. They said, "I never understood what I was being charged for. I asked for an explanation repeatedly. Then suddenly there were solicitors involved, and I was being taken to court."

That felt different. That felt like something went wrong somewhere that had nothing to do with whether they could afford a mortgage.

 

 

What You’ve Been seeing ( And Maybe Not Fully Recognising)

​

I've been working with leaseholders who have service charge CCJs for years now, and I've started to notice something. A pattern. And I think you've been seeing it too, even if you haven't connected the dots yet.

​

You're seeing more CCJs from service charges, and the data backs this up, Service charges rose some 11% last years according to Hamptons-more than four times inflation. Direct Line found 1 in 14 landlords saw increases over 21%. The property Institute tracked 41% rise sine 2019 versus just 23% inflation. These are not isolated incidents. This is a pattern

​

Managing agents are becoming more aggressive, quicker to involve solicitors, less willing to engage with legitimate questions. And leaseholders are being backed into corners where asking reasonable questions about unexplained costs somehow transforms them into debtors with court judgments against them.

​

The clients coming to you aren't trying to dodge their obligations. They're trying to understand what they're paying for. And when they can't get straight answers, they withhold payment while they figure it out. Not because they're irresponsible. Because they're being responsible—they're questioning charges that don't make sense.

Then everything moves very fast. Solicitors. Court claims. Default judgments. And suddenly your client has a £4,500 CCJ for what started as a £1,650 service charge query, plus £2000 in "legal fees" that seem to have materialized from nowhere.

​

By the time they're sitting across from you for a mortgage application, they're still trying to understand what happened. And you're having to tell them their financial life is on hold for the next several years.

​

The Conversation You're Having (And What's Actually Being Said)

​

When you're reviewing that credit report and you see the service charge CCJ, you're probably thinking: Right, here we go. They didn't pay their bills, got taken to court, now I have to be the one to break the bad news.

​

But listen to what your client is actually telling you when you ask about it. They're not saying "I couldn't afford it" or "I forgot to pay it." They're saying things like:

"My service charges doubled and nobody would explain why."

​

"I asked for a breakdown five times and kept getting forty-page PDFs of invoice scans that didn't answer my questions."

​

"The managing agent said if I had questions I should speak to the solicitors, but by then I was already being sued."

​

"I never received the court papers. First I heard about the CCJ was when you ran my credit check."

​

These aren't the words of someone dodging their responsibilities. These are the words of someone who got caught in a system that doesn't work for them, and they're still trying to process the injustice of it.

​

Here's What Most Brokers Don't Realize

​

I need to tell you something about these CCJs that changes how you think about them. The court judgment your client received. It wasn't granted because a judge looked at the service charges, examined the lease, reviewed the Section 20 consultation requirements, assessed whether the costs were reasonable, and concluded "Yes, these charges are entirely legitimate and your client was wrong to question them."

That never happened.

​

In most cases, these are default judgments CCJs. The court granted them automatically because your client didn't respond to a legal claim in the specific technical format required. Either they never received the papers—they went to an old address, got buried in spam folders, arrived while they were dealing with a family crisis—or they received them but had no idea how to respond, couldn't afford a solicitor, and froze.

The judgment means: "You didn't defend yourself against this claim, so the claimant wins by default." It doesn't mean: "We investigated and determined these charges were fair and properly demanded."

​

That distinction matters. Because it means the CCJ blocking your client's mortgage application might be based on charges that were never properly explained, never properly consulted on, possibly not even covered by their lease. Charges they were right to question.

​

Understanding this distinction changes everything about how you approach these cases. Want to discuss a specific client situation?

​

​

​

Why Service Charge CCJs Are Different

​

When you see most CCJs on a credit report, you can reasonably assume there was an underlying debt the person failed to pay. Credit card debt. Personal loan. Utility bill. Things where the obligation was clear and the person, for whatever reason, didn't meet it.

​

Service charge CCJs are different. They emerge from a specific kind of breakdown that has nothing to do with whether your client can manage money responsibly.

​

There's the failed Section 20 consultation. Under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, If managing agents are doing major works costing more than £250 per leaseholder, they're legally required to consult properly. That means sending notices to the leaseholder's actual address, not the flat they moved out of two years ago. Giving them a chance to nominate contractors. Providing proper estimates. Following specific timelines. When this doesn't happen—and it often doesn't—those charges might not be legally recoverable at all.

​

There are charges that simply aren't in the lease. Your client's lease is a legal contract that specifies exactly what they can be charged for. But managing agents sometimes charge for services the leaseholder doesn't receive, work on parts of the building the lease doesn't include improvements when the lease only allows maintenance. I worked with leaseholders facing these exact issues regularly

​

There are costs that are simply unreasonable when you look at them properly. Duplicate billing. The same work charged twice under different categories. Administrative fees that bear no relationship to the actual work involved. Legal costs that escalate from hundreds to thousands for amount to template letters.

​

There's the complete failure to provide proper explanation. Managing agents have a legal obligation to respond to reasonable queries with clear information. But your client asks for a breakdown and receives a forty-page PDF of scanned invoices with no context. They send five emails asking specific questions and nobody answers. They call and get told to email. They email and get told to call. The only department that responds is Collections.

​

By the time they withhold payment, it's not because they're trying to avoid their obligations. It's because they fundamentally cannot understand what they're being asked to pay for, and that feels wrong. And then the managing agent escalates immediately to solicitors, because they've learned that aggressive legal action usually results in payment.

​

The Weight You're Carrying (That You Don't Talk About)

​

Here's something I don't think brokers talk about enough amongst themselves, but I know you feel it.

 

That moment when you have to tell a good client that their mortgage application is declined. When you can see they're creditworthy in every way that matters, but there's this one thing on their file that means you can't help them. When they look at you with that mixture of confusion and desperation and ask "But what do I do now?" and you have no good answer to give them.

​

You didn't get into this profession to tell people their lives are on hold for six years because of something they don't understand. You got into it to help people achieve their financial goals. To be the expert who finds solutions. To be the advisor people trust when they're making the biggest purchase of their lives.

​

And here's this client, sitting across from you or on the other end of the phone, and they're not a bad credit risk. They're employed, they've saved a decent deposit, their income more than covers the mortgage they need. The only thing stopping this is a CCJ that emerged from a dispute about service charges they couldn't get anyone to explain to them.

​

So you say what you have to say—"I'm sorry, but we can't proceed"— and you move on to the next file. But it sits with you. Because you couldn't help them. You could only deliver bad news and suggest they wait for years.

​

If you're honest with yourself, there's a small part of you that wonders if there was something more you could have done. Some question you could have asked, some angle you could have explored, some specialist lender you don't know about who might look at the situation differently.

​

What Actually Happened (When You Look Properly)

​

Let me walk you through what typically happens to your clients in these situations, because once you see the full picture, the CCJ looks very different.

​

Your client's service charges increased significantly. Maybe they went from £850 to £1,650. The letter they received said something vague about "increased management costs" or "reserve fund contribution" or "major works." They read it several times and still couldn't work out where their money was actually going.

​

So they did what any reasonable person would do. They asked for a proper explanation. They wanted to see the actual breakdown. They wanted to understand what they were paying for.

​

What arrived in response was a forty-page PDF. Scanned invoices. Accounting codes that meant nothing. Line items like "Communal repairs - Block A" when they don't even have access to Block A. "Management fee increase" with no explanation of what additional management involves. They're looking at this document thinking "This isn't an explanation. This is designed to make me give up."

​

So they do what feels like the only option they have. They hold back the payment until someone can give them a straight answer about what they're being charged for. Not because they're trying to avoid their obligations. Not because they don't believe in contributing to building maintenance. But because they fundamentally cannot understand what they're being asked to pay for, and that feels wrong.

​

And then everything escalates so fast their head is spinning. Suddenly there are solicitors involved. Costs they've never heard of start piling up. "File preparation fees" of £1,200 for what must have been a few emails. "Administrative charges." "Legal representation costs." That £1,650 in disputed service charges has somehow become £4,500.

​

Then the court papers arrive. Except maybe they don't, not really. Maybe they went to the old address they moved from two years ago, even though they updated their details with the managing agent multiple times. Or maybe they got buried in email spam folders. Or maybe they arrived during that week they were caring for a sick parent and everything else in life just stopped.

​

By the time they understand what's happening, there's a default judgment CCJ against them. A judgment granted because they didn't respond to papers they either never received or didn't understand how to address. No hearing. No investigation of whether the charges were fair. Just an automatic judgment because the correct legal process wasn't followed by someone who's never dealt with the court system before.

And then they come to you for a mortgage. And that's when they find out this is going to follow them for years.

 

The Question You're Not Asking (But Should Be)

​

When you spot a service charge CCJ on a credit report, here's what usually happens: You note it, you check when it was registered, you see if it's satisfied, and then you make your recommendation based on lender criteria. It's efficient. It's professional. It's what you've been trained to do.

But there's a question you're not asking that could change everything: "What actually happened here?" Not "Did you pay this CCJ?" but "What were these service charges for? Did the managing agent ever properly explain them to you? Did you question them because they seemed wrong, or because you just didn't want to pay?"

​

Because if your client says "They never explained it. I asked for a breakdown repeatedly and got nothing clear. Then suddenly lawyers were involved"—that's a completely different situation from someone who simply didn't pay a legitimate bill.

​

That's someone who was asking reasonable questions about charges they didn't understand. Someone who got escalated to legal action for doing what any sensible person would do when faced with unexplained increases in their housing costs. Someone who ended up with a CCJ not because they're a credit risk, but because a system designed to favour managing agents crushed them.

​

And here's what I need you to know: these CCJs are often challengeable.

​

What "Challengeable" Actually Means

​

I'm not talking about some technicality or loophole. I'm talking about situations where the underlying service charges were never properly demanded, never properly consulted on, possibly not even legally recoverable. Where the court never investigated whether the charges were fair because that's not what default judgments do. Where your client was right to question what they were being charged for.

​

There are several pathways, depending on what happened.

​

Sometimes the CCJ can be set aside completely. Removed as if it never existed. This happens when there were clear procedural problems with how it was obtained. If your client genuinely never received the court papers because they went to the wrong address, and they can prove that. If the managing agent completely failed to follow Section 20 consultation requirements for major works, and that can be demonstrated. If there are obvious problems with the charges themselves—things that aren't in the lease, charges that are clearly duplicated, costs that violate the specific terms of the leasehold agreement.

​

Sometimes it's about challenging the underlying charges even if the CCJ can't be set aside. A lot of people don't realize you can dispute whether charges were reasonable even after you've paid them, as long as you haven't explicitly admitted they were fair. If your client paid "under protest"—and they should always make that clear in writing—they've preserved their right to challenge. The outcome might not be removing the CCJ, but it could be getting a determination that thousands of pounds of those charges were unreasonable and recovering them.

​

And sometimes—honestly, this is where I've seen the most success—it's about negotiation and settlement. Because here's what often happens when someone who understands leasehold law and Section 20 requirements and service charge legislation actually examines the case and then contacts the managing agent with a detailed breakdown of the problems: the managing agent starts negotiating.

​

Not always. Some managing agents are genuinely difficult, and you end up having to go through formal tribunal processes. But often, when they're presented with clear evidence that their Section 20 consultation was defective, or that they've charged for things not in the lease, or that their costs are wildly unreasonable compared to market rates, and when they realize the leaseholder has someone advising them who knows what they're talking about, suddenly there's willingness to discuss settlement.

 

Sometimes that means the CCJ gets removed as part of a negotiated agreement. Sometimes it means the charges get reduced significantly and the leaseholder gets a partial refund. Sometimes it means getting a determination that future service charges will be handled properly, with proper consultation and clear explanations.

 

The timeline? Many cases resolve in six to twelve weeks through negotiation. That's faster than waiting for the CCJ to age off the credit file.

​

The Conversation That Could Change Everything

​

I want to show you two approaches to the same situation, because the difference between them is the difference between being a broker who processes applications and being an advisor who actually helps people.

Your client applies for a mortgage. Credit check reveals service charge CCJ. You know what's coming next.

​

Approach 1

​

You could say: "Unfortunately, with that CCJ on your file, we can't proceed. You'll need to wait three to six years depending on the lender. Give me a call at some point"

And your client leaves. Maybe they try another broker, maybe they give up on homeownership for now. Either way, you've lost them. And somewhere in the back of your mind, there's that small nagging feeling that maybe there was more you could have done.

 

Approach 2

​

Or you could pause. You could certainly ask a different question.

​

"I see you have a service charge CCJ. Before we give up, I need to understand what happened. Was this from charges you disputed or questioned? Did you feel the managing agent never properly explained what you were paying for?"

And your client says "Yes! They never explained the £800 increase. I asked for a breakdown, and they sent me forty pages of invoices I couldn't understand. Then suddenly lawyers were involved, and I was getting threatening letters and I didn't know what to do."

​

 

Now you're having a different conversation. Now you can say:

 

​Ready to start having these conversations with confidence ?

​

​

"This is really common with service charge disputes. And here's what most people don't know—the CCJ doesn't mean a court investigated whether the charges were fair. It just means you didn't respond to a legal claim you may never have received. These types of CCJs are often challengeable.

​

I work with a specialist who helps leaseholders negotiate fair settlements on disputed service charges and, where appropriate, get CCJs set aside or removed. Many cases resolve in six to twelve weeks. It's not guaranteed, but it's worth exploring.

Would you like me to introduce you? There's no obligation—they offer a free consultation to review whether your case has grounds for challenge. If it does, we might be able to get that CCJ dealt with and proceed with your mortgage much sooner than waiting years. If it doesn't, at least we'll know we explored every option."

 

Your client feels heard. They see hope for the first time since this started. They appreciate that you're not just declining them and moving on—you're trying to help solve the problem.

​

Even if the CCJ challenge doesn't succeed, you've demonstrated something your competitors don't: you're an advisor who cares about finding solutions. You're someone who goes the extra mile. And that client will remember you. When they're finally mortgage-ready, who do you think they're calling? When their friends mention they need a broker, whose name comes up?

​

What This Actually Looks Like

​

Let me walk you through how this typically unfolds. This reflects the pattern I see regularly in my practise. The specific details vary, but the underlining issues and outcomes are consistent. We had a client, a long-term lease holder, who owned their own flat for 15 years. He always paid service charges on time. Maintained the property well. He moved to a new address. Still retaining the flat and immediately notified the managing agent in writing requesting his correspondence address be updated. He received written confirmation that the change has been made.

​

Nine months later, service charges for major works arrived to the tune of £7,500. The breakdown was vague. Our client questioned the charges not to avoid payment, but because the consultation process seemed rushed and the cost appear excessive compared to similar work in neighbouring buildings, a request for detailed documentation about the Section 28 consultation process, the contractor selection, and cost justifications. The managing agent responded with generic PDF's but didn’t address our client’s specific questions. Our client continued to request proper clarification while withholding the disputed amount. Suddenly he was copied in on emails with solicitors

​

The court papers were issued. But here's where it becomes particularly egregious:  despite our client having confirmed their address change in writing some nine months earlier, the management agent sent all the legal correspondence to the old address.

 

Our client had no idea legal proceedings were underway. A default judgement CCJ was granted. £7500 became £9200 with legal costs added. The client only discovered this 18 months later when applying to remortgage. The management agent claimed they had no record of the address change, despite the written email confirmation which our client still possessed.

​

When cases like this are properly examined, several problems typically emerge. We found out that the Section 20 consultation was defective as the notices sent to wrong addresses for multiple leaseholders. The contractor nomination window was inadequate. Cost estimates weren't properly comparable. Over half the charged costs weren't properly consulted on under the statutory requirements.

​

Negotiation began. Our client presented evidence of the written confirmation of address change exchange, defective consultation process, comparison of costs with similar works elsewhere. The managing agent’s solicitors initially maintained their position but faced with clear evidence of procedural failures and potential tribunal proceedings, settlement was reached.

​

The charges to our client were reduced from £7500 to £2800, reflecting only the costs that were properly consulted on and reasonably incurred. The CCJ was set aside by consent, removed completely from the credit file. Timeline: some twelve weeks from initial contact to CCJ removal.

​

Our client’s re-mortgage was approved four months later. Her broker had a built. Has built a reputation for finding solutions of his missed.

 

Have a client in a similar situation?

​

Let's discuss whether their case has grounds for challenge

​

Schedule a free 15 minute call

​

0333 3444 945 or welcome@removeccjuk.com

​

The Advantage This Gives You

​

Most brokers stop at "application declined." They deliver the bad news, suggest waiting a few years, move on to the next client. It's understandable—there are time pressures, commission targets, a stack of applications on your desk. You can't save everyone.

​

But what if you could be the broker who actually solves problems? The one who doesn't just process applications but helps clients navigate situations that seem impossible?

When you know enough to recognize which service charge CCJs might be challengeable, when you have someone, you can refer these cases to, when you can offer your client a genuine path forward instead of just "wait and try again later"—you differentiate yourself in a way that matters.

​

Your client remembers who helped them when everyone else gave up. Even if the CCJ challenge takes months, even if it doesn't succeed entirely, they remember that you tried. That you cared enough to explore options beyond the standard response. When they're finally mortgage-ready, they're coming back to you. When their friends need a broker, your name comes up.

​

Instead of "call me in three years," it becomes "let's work on this together and I'll be ready when you are." You're not losing the client—you're extending the relationship in a way that builds real loyalty.

​

And honestly? There's something that feels better about this approach. That nagging feeling you get when you have to decline a good client for something that doesn't quite feel fair—that goes away when you know you've explored every possible avenue for them.

​

What To Actually Do

​

I'm not suggesting you become a service charge CCJ expert. That's not your job, and you have enough technical knowledge to keep current with as it is.

​

What I am suggesting is that when you see a service charge CCJ, you pause. You ask a few more questions before moving straight to declining the application.

 

What were the service charges for? Did the managing agent explain them clearly? Did you question them because they seemed wrong, or because you just didn't want to pay? Did you receive the court claim at your current address? Were you living there when it was issued? Is this a new build, a conversion, an older building? Have other leaseholders in the building had similar issues?

​

If your client tells you they genuinely disputed charges they couldn't understand, if the managing agent provided poor or no explanation, if the claim went to an old address, if major works were involved and consultation seems questionable—those are signs this CCJ might be worth challenging.

 

If you're a mortgage broker who's seeing these patterns in your practice, if you're ready to explore how to have those different conversation to help clients facing service charge CCJs, reach out directly:

​

​

 

​
 

​

​