BIR/00FN/LIS/2021/0034 — service charge decision
In BIR/00FN/LIS/2021/0034, decided 7 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Apt 7, 137 Humberstone Drive, Leicester and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apt 7, 137 Humberstone Drive, Leicester
Decision date: 7 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Butlins.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018) | £30 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 21B summary of rights, Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019) | £1,125 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 21B summary of rights, Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2020) | £1,200 | £1,115.51 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2020) | £413.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 21B summary of rights, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We determine that the claimed arrears in 2018 are not payable at this point, as lack of compliance with section 21B entitled the Respondent to withhold payment.”
“the service charge for 2019 is therefore not payable unless and until that statement is served, and a retrospective effort is made to make a lease compliant demand”
“The sum payable for 2020 is £1,115.51.”
“In the absence of evidence of service of a summary of rights and obligations, the Tribunal has no alternative but to disallow the charges.”
“We agree with the Respondent that, evidenced by the emails we referred to, the Applicant did not pay adequate attention to the terms of the lease in so far as demanding or varying the service charge in 2019 was concerned.”
“It is a pity that the Applicant did not ask Mr Umma to inspect in more detail the localised area that the Respondent said was causing difficulty when that matter was raised with the Applicant in Spring 2020.”
“It is also a pity that the Respondent did not provide better evidence of the water ingress; photographs were apparently supplied to the Applicant, but these were not made available to us.”
“The Applicant, the director of which is a professional property agent, who took advice from solicitors, and was reminded of its obligation in directions which were not complied with, should have followed the established procedure and provided details of its costs to enable them to be assessed.”
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.