Freeholder reappears demanding 6 years ground rent

You have not a chance on the ground rent, not worth challenging. And say you fight that and pay the next SC, what do you do if they pay the GR out of that and say you are still behind on the service charge... and by the way here are some more admin charges.

Still just a few hundred quid, but the legals fees seem to be practically unlimited

If you have benefited from insurance for the last 3 years you could agree to pay that to avoid completely alienating the FH, they can make your life hell with a thousand small injustices.

I note your property is in Manchester and I am wondering whether your property is in fact freehold subject to an annual rent-charge, rather than leasehold subject to a ground rent. Rent-charges on freehold property are sometimes found on Mancunian properties (as well as in and around Bristol where I used to work) and the law is rather different from that relating to recovery of rent under leases.
Your solicitor should know the difference, but it might be worth checking.
It seems to me that the admin and notice charges have been demanded because of late payment - a not unusual tactic in these cases to extort money. If you need a clear receipt then to get your re-mortgage registered it might be easier to pay up as you probably won't get anywhere by arguing about it. But as previous writier says they shouldn't be able to charge fees for further annual payments.
You might consider either buying the freehold (if the house is leasehold) or buying out any rent-charge - it costs monsy but it saves future problems with having to pay rent and would make it easier to sell. Your solicitor should also be able to advise about this.

I don't know about regional differences but I thought that there are only three ways to hold legal interest in property; Freehold, Leasehold and Commonhold. Perhaps asking the invoicing company for a copy of the legal document that they say entitles them to demand rent. How would one know that the demand is genuine otherwise? If it is genuine then for the sake of £117.82 you may as well pay it if you are hoping on a re mortgage.

the solicitor should have obtained a copy of the leasehold document which specifies the original lease terms.... they seem to have only found this document on the second conveyance..... this lease will tell OP how much the ground rent is.....

I have seen a handwritten one from the Manchester area which is over 100 years old and the ground rent is £0.0s.9d per year....... and was never changed.... The freeholder demanded £117 from me..... I sent them a cheque for 6 years worth of back rent (the most that can be claimed) at £0.30 in full and final settlement and they never claimed admin costs from me again. I do pay them £0.05 annually.

Personal advise is to not to go to the "First tear Tribunal" they incompetent & not fit for the purpose.

no point going to a tribunal until you have exhausted every avenue with the freeholder... in any case (if there are no service charges) would you really want to waste so much time and effort on so little an amount of money ? Life is too short

I agree live is too short & a commercial view should be taken in most aspects of life which I do. However in the case of Freeholders/managing Agents I make an exception & will continue to do so until they stop their extortion.

Why should be the Freeholder charge for admin fee. When he/she acquires a Freehold it is implied that they will have to do some admin.

because they assume folks don't understand their rights

I have one freeholder who still tries it on... last year I wrote this to them

Further to your letter of 5 September 2013, I enclose a cheque in the sum of £1.10. Since the original lease dated 12th December 1923 makes no provision for “forfeiture costs” I am unable to pay your claim of £60.

Never heard a word back from them.

Indeed & they have good reasons to do so. One thing positive that the credit crises have brought to us is that people are looking at their finances and noticing these are kind of charges.

These people can be reigned only if the courts act and the disgraced lower tear act in a fair manner. They are well aware of the extortion but do not act. I had asked the Courts to not not pass my cases to the old LVT as I have no confidence in the, The judges ignored it. I did stress to the judge that if I had confidence in the LVT I would not have made the application to the Courts and would have taken the LVT route.

Re comment from David Atkins at 19.56 yesterday, you are correct that there are now only 3 ways of holding a legal estate in land. However these rent-charges on freehold land are something of anomaly but as I know they exist on some Manchester properties I thougt it worth flagging up.
Basically although a property is freehold it is subject to a 'rent' which would have been rreserved in an old conveyance - this 'rent' is 'charged' on the property (in the same way that a mortgage is a 'legal charge')
Rent charges of this type can no longer be cretaed but the old ones still carry on.
The amounts are now usually insignificant and it os often not worth while collecting them.. But the benefit of these rent-charges can be bought and sold (and registered at the Land Registry) and investors sometimes buy them at auction thinking they are buying freehold reversions on leasehold property. They then try all sorts of tricks on the property owner to extract money from unfortunate proeprty owners!
Because these rent-charges only occur in the Manchester and Bristol areas so far as I aware few conveyancers are aware of them and the problems involved.
Incidentally I would doubt that there will be any service charges involved even if the property is leasehold. As it is a house it would be likely for an old lease to contain any provisions for the freeholder to do any works or even insure, so there would not be any services to charge for.