BIR/00CT/LSC/2021/0003 — service charge decision
In BIR/00CT/LSC/2021/0003, decided 19 May 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Dickens Heath Estate, Shirley, Solihull and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Dickens Heath Estate, Shirley, Solihull
Decision date: 19 May 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Centrick Property Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The fair and reasonable proportion to be applied to the 2021 Service Charge (and retrospectively to the 2020 Service charge through the balancing charge) is as follows”
“The balance of the Estate charge and Area Charge is to be apportioned between the residential leaseholders on a 'per unit' basis, varied in respect of the GSW houses to .75 of a unit.”
“The Tribunal has taken account of the reduced level of service required by the GSW houses in respect of management time, management fees, security, the services of the Building Manager and associated costs, in fixing the reduced unit charge for the Estate and Area charge.”
“block insurance is the usual and generally most economic method of insuring leasehold blocks. The premium is divided on a floor area basis which is the fairest method as it reflects the reinstatement value calculation on which the premium is based.”
“80% of the charges for maintenance and repair of the water feature should be allocated to the Waterside Area charge. The Tribunal determines that allocating the remaining 20% of the costs to the general Estate charge.”
“Unfortunately, neither Man Co or its managing agents have followed recommended good practice and cannot now say with any certainty how the original apportionments were calculated or what the rationale was for the weightings applied to the GSW houses.”
“On this paltry, inadequate explanation, provided as late as the middle of the hearing, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that the historic 30% allocation of service charge costs to the commercial units was or is unfair or unreasonable.”
“There has been no variation of this methodology since being adopted in 2009, until Savills clumsy effort in 2019.”
“Savills had failed to communicate issues with the apportionment allocations to the leaseholders before issuing the 2020 budget demand. The budget demand was insufficient to cover required maintenance leaving Centrick to manage the leaseholders' expectation that the maintenance costs demanded would be sufficient.”
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.