BIR/47UC/LLD/2022/0001 — service charge decision
In BIR/47UC/LLD/2022/0001, decided 10 May 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flats at St Andrews House, 38 Graham Road, Malvern, Worcestershire and found largely for the leaseholder: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats at St Andrews House, 38 Graham Road, Malvern, Worcestershire
Decision date: 10 May 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Taylor Clarke.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £2,884.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £162 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £6 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Our decision is that the Shortfall is not recoverable from the Respondents through the service charge. It is not reasonably incurred.”
“What is a matter for us is whether IDL, having been allowed all the counsel's fees and disbursements that it asked for in the Cronin Litigation, can now claim an extra counsel's fee and a £6 Land Registry fee that it failed to claim in that litigation. We have no hesitation in determining that it cannot.”
“can now claim an extra counsel's fee and a £6 Land Registry fee that it failed to claim in that litigation. We have no hesitation in determining that it cannot.”
“IDL, and their advisers, have fallen into the trap of assuming that they can pass on all costs they incur in managing the Property to the Respondents. That is an error. They can only pass on costs that are reasonably incurred, and the outcome of the Cronin Litigation was that some costs were held not to be so. Their remedy was to appeal that decision if they disagreed with it. It is wholly inappropriate to have demanded payment of sums that they and their advisers should have been aware were irrecoverable.”
“In our view, the advice was incorrect.”
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.