CAM/00KA/LSC/2023/0019 — service charge decision
In CAM/00KA/LSC/2023/0019, decided 6 December 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Flat 52, Highview Court, Dudley Street, Luton and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 52, Highview Court, Dudley Street, Luton
Decision date: 6 December 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Y & Y Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017/18-2022/23) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19 onwards) | £538 | £484.20 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Management fees (2017/18-2022/23) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2017/18-2022/23) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Major works (2022/23-2023/24) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Lifts (2017/18-2022/23) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2017/18-2022/23) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2017/18-2022/23) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Gardening & grounds (2017/18-2022/23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“it will not be reasonable for the Respondent to demand payment of any communal electricity charges from the leaseholders… these charges were not reasonably incurred”
“we therefore intend to apply a reduction of 10% to the £538.00 in issue under this head in respect of the years £2018/19 onwards, i.e. £53.80.”
“the quality of the service provided by Y & Y Management in all the years of account save the most recent…was so poor that it is necessary to reduce the amount of the charge by 50%”
“The question whether it is fair and reasonable that the Applicants should have to bear the same proportion…it is clear that the owners of flats with balconies receive a substantially smaller benefit…their exposure to it should accordingly be reduced by 50%, a reduction of £69.00.”
“it is manifestly inappropriate that Y & Y should be paid a management charge of 15% of the contract price of £10,080.00… It is not therefore reasonable for Landlord to incur any additional costs paying it to manage a project which it ought to have been managing anyway.”
“Avon accepted in the course of evidence that the charge of £580.81 by RCUK, purportedly in relation to a lift telephone line, was not properly made and ought therefore to be deducted.”
“It is difficult in these circumstance to avoid the conclusion that the true purpose of Avon's application was to divert any liability which might arise in this case (and possibly others too) on to the asset-less Second Respondent and so render enforcement more difficult for the Applicants.”
“we find that it was vexatiously, abusively and unreasonably made.”
“We were unimpressed by Mr Gurvits' evidence, such as it was, in relation to each these points. We felt that it was his purpose, so far as possible, to divert our attention away from the examination of questions relating to the solar panels.”
“Y & Y's failures to get to grips with the security problems, solar panel issues, maintenance issues and problems with the lifts, despite the considerable best efforts of Mr Pilgrim, were the result of negligence and/or indigence on the part of Mr Shipman and Mr Bloom.”
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.