BIR/17UH/LIS/2021/0026 — service charge decision
In BIR/17UH/LIS/2021/0026, decided 7 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, 5 The Square, Buxton, Derbyshire and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, 5 The Square, Buxton, Derbyshire
Decision date: 7 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019-20) | £575.61 | £575.61 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £122 | £122 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-20) | £952 | £333.33 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £126.57 | £126.57 | Withdrawn | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019-20) | £6,000 | £6,000 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal determines that the figure of £575.61 (one-third of £1,726,84) included in the Respondents' service charge demand in respect of buildings insurance is reasonable.”
“Reluctantly, therefore, the Tribunal determines that by reference to the terms of the lease and the provisions of the 1985 Act the figure of £122.00 included in the Respondents' service charge demand in respect of boiler repairs is reasonable.”
“the Tribunal determines that a reasonable figure to include in the service charge accounts in respect of dealing with the statutory consultation procedure is £1,000.00 inclusive of VAT; and that the Respondents' one-third apportionment of that figure - £333.33 inclusive of VAT – is reasonable.”
“Although the Respondents originally challenged their liability under the lease to contribute to the costs of the replacement pavement grate, they subsequently withdrew their challenge.”
“the Tribunal determines that the figure of £18,000.00 included in the service charge accounts for 2019/2020 in respect of the setting up of a repair fund (and the Respondents' one-third apportionment of £6,000.00) is reasonable.”
“the Tribunal is therefore of the view that the Applicant's approach to the apportionment of the boiler repair costs is inconsistent with its approach to the apportionment of the heating costs in the previous case – and that it could be seen as unfair to the Respondents.”
“the Tribunal does not accept that it was reasonable to incur the (even discounted) costs of a lawyer in dealing with the statutory consultation procedure. With template documents available on internet websites of organisations such as Lease and ARMA, the various stages of the procedure can be properly completed by a competent landlord or landlord's agent. The Applicant may have preferred not to take on the task itself – and, as already noted, it does not appear to have a managing agent – but that does not make it reasonable to incur the costs of a lawyer and to pass on (a proportion of) those costs to the Respondents.”
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.