CAM/00KF/LSC/2022/0028 — service charge decision
In CAM/00KF/LSC/2022/0028, decided 11 October 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flats 1 & 3, 28 Cobham Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1 & 3, 28 Cobham Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex
Decision date: 11 October 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Sorrell Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £350.50 | £350.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | £142.80 | £142.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £570 | £570 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £568.77 | £398.14 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £2,300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Both items seem to me to be amply justified. The feasibility assessment was mandated by the fire safety assessment and the making safe of the exposed wiring was said by Molossi to be urgently required.”
“In the absence of any evidence that a reliable cleaner could be found to do the work for less, I am unable to conclude that this charge is unreasonable.”
“I am bound to prefer the evidence of Ms Clark that she was not aware of any contractor which would have provided both reports for that price. She is an experienced managing agent and said that she selected their contractors because she had worked with them before and that they provided good quality reports at a reasonable price.”
“I find that the quality of the service which Sorrell has provided since its appointment has been significantly less than the charge which it has made. I therefore find that the reasonable level of remuneration...should be reduced by 30% to take account of these failings.”
“it is appropriate that I should order that the Respondent is not entitled to recover its costs of these proceedings by way of service charge.”
“a failure to obtain, read and understand the lease is not excusable on that account.”
“the failure of Sorrell to read and understand the terms of the Applicants' leases, its consequently misconceived demand for payment of its budgeted service charge (including charges in respect of a garden which had been demised to Ms Summers), its instruction of debt collectors to collect that erroneously demanded service charge and the charges which Ms Price and Ms Summers have had to incur as a consequence is responsible in large measure for their discontent and this application.”
“These are serious failures of management.”
“I find that the quality of the service which Sorrell has provided since its appointment has been significantly less than the charge which it has made.”
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.