BIR/00CT/LDC/2020/0011 — service charge decision
In BIR/00CT/LDC/2020/0011, decided 24 November 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Waters Edge and Waterside Heights, Waterside, Dickens Heath, Shirley, Solihull and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Waters Edge and Waterside Heights, Waterside, Dickens Heath, Shirley, Solihull
Decision date: 24 November 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Savills plc.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2020) | £230,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | £230,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The estimated total cost of the Works is £230,000 exclusive of VAT. The breakdown of the costs is set out in the Scope of Works (pages 7 to 15).”
“until the fire alarm upgrade works are completed there must be an ongoing 'waking watch' at the Properties to assist the evacuation of the occupants in the event of a fire, at an ongoing cost of around £25,000 plus VAT per month.”
“The estimated total cost of the Works is £230,000 exclusive of VAT.”
“until the fire alarm upgrade works are completed there must be an ongoing 'waking watch' at the Properties to assist the evacuation of the occupants in the event of a fire, at an ongoing cost of around £25,000 plus VAT per month.”
“until the fire alarm upgrade works are completed there must be an ongoing 'waking watch' at the Properties to assist the evacuation of the occupants in the event of a fire, at an ongoing cost of around £25,000 plus VAT per month.”
“The Respondent has not identified how the the truncated consultation process has prevented him from objecting to the Works or identifying an alternative contractor. Leaseholders were given 30 days to respond. There is limited evidence that the Respondent was unable to or was prevented from responding to the consultation exercise, although truncated. One leaseholder did respond but did not address the scope of the Works, the estimate or the proposed contractor. The Respondent has not submitted any evidence of any proposed alternatives to the Works, the estimates or the proposed contractor.”
“The Respondent has not submitted any evidence of any proposed alternatives to the Works, the estimates or the proposed contractor.”
“The Respondent has not identified any prejudice that they have or might suffer due to the truncated consultation process and the failure to comply with the statutory consultation time period.”
“The majority of submission relates to matters that ought more properly to be considered under an application under section 27A of the 1985 Act to determine whether a relevant contribution to the cost of the Works is payable at all and/or whether a relevant contribution is reasonable. The Respondent has not identified any prejudice that they have or might suffer due to the truncated consultation process and the failure to comply with the statutory consultation time period.”
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.