CAM/00JA/LSC/2021/0011 — service charge decision
In CAM/00JA/LSC/2021/0011, decided 31 August 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flat 24 Park House, 117 Park Road, Peterborough and reached a mixed result: 10 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 24 Park House, 117 Park Road, Peterborough
Decision date: 31 August 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Warwick Estates Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2018-19) | £312.27 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2019-20) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | £685.57 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2019-20) | — | £911.74 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Administration charges (2020-21) | £95 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2020-21) | £186 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £281 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £306 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2020-21) | £239.98 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Taking into account its findings on the standard of management in respect of communication and demands for payment the Tribunal determines that a reasonable management fee for the Applicants for the years in issue is £200.00 plus £40.00 VAT.”
“Taking into account its findings on the standard of management in respect of communication and demands for payment the Tribunal determines that a reasonable management fee for the Applicants for the years in issue is £200.00 plus £40.00 VAT.”
“the Tribunal determines that the reasonable Service Charge payable by the Applicant to the Respondent for the year ending 31st December 2018 is £685.57”
“the Tribunal determines that the reasonable Service Charge payable by the Applicant to the Respondent for the year ending 31st December 2019 is £911.74.”
“Having found the Managing Agent's communications confusing and the management and demands for payment unsatisfactory, the Tribunal determines the Administration Charges of £95.00, £186.00, £281.00 and £306.00 to be unreasonable and not payable.”
“Having found the Managing Agent's communications confusing and the management and demands for payment unsatisfactory, the Tribunal determines the Administration Charges of £95.00, £186.00, £281.00 and £306.00 to be unreasonable and not payable.”
“The Tribunal found that the Managing Agent's demands for payment were so confusing that it led to the Applicants failing to pay their charges because they did not understand what was being demanded. Therefore, the standard of management was not reasonable.”
“The Tribunal found that on taking over the Building, the Landlord and its Agents, Warwick Estates and Pier Management and later its solicitors JB Leitch could have done far more to explain matters to the Applicants, as it was obvious, they did not understand the situation.”
“it was obtuse of Warwick Estates to refuse to hand over to Pier Management the £400.00 paid by the Applicants knowing that these funds were for the Ground Rent.”
“The Respondent's Statement of Case was predominantly a repeat of extracts from the Lease and reasons why under the Lease Service Charges are payable. It was pointed out that the Applicants' case was a series of questions but the Respondent did not seek to engage with those questions and explain matters to the Applicants, if they had the Tribunal is of the opinion that it would not have come to a hearing.”
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.