Eagerstates’ filed defence was short. The claimant still had to answer the money-claim route objection and the later signed-document argument separately, using law, evidence and figures.
Answer the conclusion
First accept what is legally correct: First-tier Tribunal (FTT) findings under section 27A are declaratory. Then identify the fresh repayment claim, keep any express payment order separate and prove the amount claimed.
Eagerstates said a money claim was unavailable
The filed defence relied on the declaratory nature of FTT decisions to challenge the County Court route.
How the claimant answered
Accept that a section 27A determination is declaratory and is not itself a directly enforceable money judgment.
Identify the service-charge element as a fresh County Court claim for repayment, not CPR 70.5 enforcement of the declarations.
Keep the share of the FTT's express tribunal-fee payment order separate from the repayment calculation.
Use the decisions and schedule to show which liability issues were already decided and how the amount claimed was calculated.
Evidence needed
The complete FTT decisions
Demands and proof of payment
Lease percentage
Row-by-row repayment calculation
Letter before claim and response
Safer model wording
The Claimant does not seek to enforce the FTT's section 27A declarations as money judgments. This is a fresh claim for repayment of sums paid but, applying the FTT's determinations, not payable. The calculation is set out in the schedule. Any express order to reimburse a tribunal fee is identified separately.
Eagerstates relied on a later no-dispute statement
The document was signed during a property-sale process and was treated as confirmation that no dispute existed and no claim could be made.
How the claimant answered
Start with the document's exact words, date and context rather than simply calling it invalid.
Address whether it was intended to settle or release an existing repayment claim, whether consideration or deed formalities matter and what authority each party had.
Explain the chronology: the FTT decisions pre-dated the document and the claimant said it was required to obtain sale information.
If pressure or duress is alleged, prove the demand, available alternatives, practical effect and applicable legal test with admissible evidence.
Evidence needed
Complete signed document
Chronology of the FTT decisions and signing
Admissible evidence of why it was requested
Any settlement communications kept in their proper evidential category
Advice on construction, consideration, statutory effect and duress
Safer model wording
The Defendant's reliance on the document is disputed. Its effect depends on its words and context. It post-dated the FTT decisions, was not intended by the Claimant to settle the repayment claim, and was signed in the circumstances set out in the evidence. The Court is asked to determine its effect on those facts and the applicable law.
Prepare your own response
Do not paste the worked answer over a different defence.
Copy each defence paragraph into a separate matrix row.
State whether you admit, deny or cannot admit the exact point.
State the legal answer and link the primary source.
Identify the document and page proving each fact.
Record whether the point changes the calculation.
Comply with the court’s directions even if the defence is short.