BIR/00GF/LIS/2021/0029 — service charge decision
In BIR/00GF/LIS/2021/0029, decided 5 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 10 Beaconsfield, Telford, Shropshire and found largely for the leaseholder: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 10 Beaconsfield, Telford, Shropshire
Decision date: 5 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2019) | £75 | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Administration charges (2020) | £75 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £534 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | £502.16 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £1,416 | £780 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £1,411 | £943.33 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £678 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“failure to provide the summary entitles the payee to withhold payment. This finding does not mean that the charge may not be payable if the Applicant cures the failure to provide the summary of rights and obligations.”
“It could never be reasonable to levy a charge for non-payment if payment can simply be taken from the credit balance on the account.”
“this charge of £534.00 has been settled. It does not in fact form part of the claim.”
“actual expenditure in 2018/19 was £3,467.00. The estimated service charge for that year was £6,480.00… There was therefore an underspend of £3,013.00, or £502.16 per flat.”
“The credit should therefore have been the original charge of £1,416 minus the amount determined as the reasonable service charge of £780.00, which is £636.00, not £492.00. We found that the Respondent should be credited with a further £144.00.”
“the proposed budget was unreasonable as drafted… it was around 50% higher than the previous years expenditure, and around two and a half times the amount of actual expenditure in 2018/19”
“It is a difficulty in this case that the pleadings were, to say the least, unsophisticated on the part of both parties.”
“The legal costs arising from that incident of £678.00 were not explained at all. And of course, further confusion was created by the incorrect reference to the time-period for which the allegedly outstanding service charge related. There is no reference to the dates of the invoices which the Applicant says are outstanding.”
“The Applicant had entirely failed to address this element of the Respondent's defence in its statement of case, and there was no witness statement explaining what action the Applicant had taken to investigate this payment.”
“Even though the reasonableness of the estimated service charge was clearly in issue, the Applicant provided no evidence to justify or explain the budget figures.”
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.