CAM/00KF/LIS/2021/0016 — service charge decision
In CAM/00KF/LIS/2021/0016, decided 21 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, 30 St Andrews Road, Shoeburyness, Southend on Sea, Essex and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, 30 St Andrews Road, Shoeburyness, Southend on Sea, Essex
Decision date: 21 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Blue Property Management UK Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £445 | £445 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £996.58 | £720 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £12 | £12 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £1.80 | £1.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020-21) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“In the absence of evidence to the contrary and in the knowledge and experience of the Tribunal the Accountancy fees of £445.00 (£325.00 + Certification Fee of £120.00) for the year ending 30th June 2021 are reasonable and payable.”
“the Tribunal determined in the knowledge and experience of its members, that a charge of £216.00 per unit inclusive of VAT (£180.00 + £36.00 VAT = £216.00) is reasonable giving an annual figure of £1,080.00”
“From the Photographs it was apparent that some basic work had been carried out for which, in the absence of evidence to the contrary £300.00 appeared a reasonable quantum meruit.”
“The insurance should cover this risk for a modest premium and so is determined to be reasonable and payable.”
“There are a couple of small invoices for postage and an invoice of Client Protection Insurance”
“the Tribunal makes an Order extinguishing the Applicants' individual liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11”
“There was no dispute that the handover was poor to non-existent and this may have exacerbated the dispute, particularly as the Applicant stated that she had already paid management fees to March 2021 and therefore there is a period where management fees have been sought by both companies.”
“Taking into account the previous manner in which Service Charges were levied and the unsatisfactory manner in which the hand over to the present Managing Agent had been conducted and the lack of services, notwithstanding they were due to difficulties of circumstances, it was understandable that the Applicant should question the service charge in issue.”
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.