CHI/19UH/LSC/2020/0073 — service charge decision
In CHI/19UH/LSC/2020/0073, decided 18 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Variously 14 properties within Fernhill Heights, Charmouth, Dorset, DT6 6AU and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Variously 14 properties within Fernhill Heights, Charmouth, Dorset, DT6 6AU
Decision date: 18 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Crown Property Management Ltd (CPM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2016) | £21,315 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2017) | £31,853 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2018) | £23,839 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £24,119 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“£21,315.00 for the year ending 31st December 2016 [135]”
“£31,853.00 for the year ending 31st December 2017 [144]”
“£23,839.00 for the year ending 31st December 2018 [152]”
“£24,119.00 for the year ending 31st December 2019 [161]”
“When it came to providing detailed information regarding the sums involved in the Litigation, the Tribunal found Mr Stocks a less than impressive witness. He was vague and unable to provide clear information to the Tribunal about the arrears owed by the House and Hotel. Nor could he provide detail about the legal costs that had been incurred, apart from to say that CPM simply paid the invoices provided by JPC law as and when presented.”
“The Tribunal was hampered in making findings as to the extent of the Legal Costs, by the Respondent's failure to provide information about the legal costs it has incurred. No detailed schedule was provided setting out the costs incurred in each service charge year.”
“Although Mr Stocks told the Tribunal that the Respondent had only commenced legal action against the House and Hotel at the instigation of the Tenants, the Tribunal finds this not to be the case.”
“Given that one of the issues for the Tribunal to determine under s27A of the 1985 Act was whether any legal costs payable under the lease were reasonable and had been reasonably incurred, the Tribunal found the absence of documentary evidence surprising. There were no invoices, bills or evidence of payment.”
This summary is assembled from the structured record of the published decision; amounts appear only where the tribunal stated them. Always rely on the full decision itself.