CAM/00KF/LIS/2020/0016 — service charge decision
In CAM/00KF/LIS/2020/0016, decided 30 November 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flats 5 and 6 Roberts View, 1c Camper Road, Southend on Sea and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 5 and 6 Roberts View, 1c Camper Road, Southend on Sea
Decision date: 30 November 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Inspired Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | £13,311 | £5,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2020) | £1,200 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £1,580 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £1,470 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020) | £1,440 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2020) | £400 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £1,600 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determined that a total Reserve Fund contribution would be £5,000 with each Flat paying a contribution of £833.00 per annum for the year in issue, 2020.”
“Cleaning for all years was the same or similar and determined to be reasonable.”
“General Repairs had been increasing each year which was understandable as the Building aged... The estimated cost was determined to be reasonable.”
“Buildings Insurance... determined to be reasonable.”
“Management Fees were in line with previous years. Estimated amount determined to be reasonable.”
“Out of hours, Electricity and Lift Maintenance was the same as previous years and determined to be reasonable.”
“the Tribunal considered that the Managing Agents on behalf of the Respondent should have explained the rationale of the Reserve Fund and forewarned the Applicants of the very substantial demand for the Reserve Fund contribution. It was not unreasonable for the Applicants to apply to the Tribunal for a determination promptly on receiving the demand without some explanation. The information provided with the budget did not address what was bound to be the Applicants' main concern of the demand of over £2,000 per flat towards the reserve which doubled the Service Charge.”
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.