BIR/00CT/LIS/2022/0001 — service charge decision
In BIR/00CT/LIS/2022/0001, decided 25 May 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, Hatchford Court, Old Lode Lane, Solihull and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, Hatchford Court, Old Lode Lane, Solihull
Decision date: 25 May 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018-19) | £1,141.19 | £1,141.19 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-2022) | £6,682.56 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £11,768.60 | £6,605 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Respondent had admitted that service charge of £1,141.19, demanded from her in 2019, was reasonable and payable by her to the Applicant”
“additional service charges of £6,682.56 are not currently payable by Ms Cookson to Brickfield Properties Limited, as such sums have not been properly demanded of her”
“the instruction of counsel to represent the Applicant at the hearing, at a cost of £2,000 plus VAT, to be wholly unreasonable”
“Judge Gandham considered that the preparation of the statement of case should have been relatively straightforward, the Applicant's representative having already prepared the witness statement for the court proceedings. Although the statement of case consisted of eight pages, the first page was primarily comprised of the heading and over three pages of the statement comprised a table detailing the service charge arrears, two pages of which related to charges that had not even been demanded of the Respondent.”
“the instruction of counsel to represent the Applicant at the hearing, at a cost of £2,000 plus VAT, to be wholly unreasonable. The hearing lasted half an hour and Judge Gandham considered that a Grade A solicitor was capable of representing the Applicant at the hearing”
“Mrs Eames was not able to confirm as to why preparing the final statement of costs (item 45) took 5 hours to complete, when the time taken to prepare the previous statements (items 15 and 27) each took 36 minutes.”
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.