Decision summary

CAM/00KF/LSC/2022/0074 — service charge decision

In CAM/00KF/LSC/2022/0074, decided 16 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, 140 York Road, Southend-on-Sea and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flat 1, 140 York Road, Southend-on-Sea
Decision date: 16 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Pier Management Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Buildings insurance (2017/18)£595.11£595.11Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2018/19)£342.92£342.92Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2019/20)£350£350Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2020/21)£350Disallowed entirelyOther grounds
Buildings insurance (2021/22)£350£350Allowed in full
Management fees (2017/18)£95.94£95.94Allowed in full
Management fees (2018/19)£115£115Allowed in full
Management fees (2019/20)£115£115Allowed in full
Management fees (2020/21)£115Disallowed entirelyOther grounds
Management fees (2021/22)£115£115Allowed in full

Section 20C order: partial.

Key passages (verbatim)

“the Tribunal finds that the buildings insurance charges for the disputed years were reasonably incurred and reasonable.”
On buildings insurance
“the Tribunal finds that the buildings insurance charges for the disputed years were reasonably incurred and reasonable.”
On buildings insurance
“the Tribunal finds that the buildings insurance charges for the disputed years were reasonably incurred and reasonable.”
On buildings insurance
“The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make a determination on the service charges levied in respect of buildings insurance and management fees for 2020/21, the matter having already been the subject of determination by the County Court.”
On buildings insurance
“the Tribunal finds that the buildings insurance charges for the disputed years were reasonably incurred and reasonable.”
On buildings insurance
“the Tribunal finds on the evidence presented that the management fees for the disputed years were reasonably incurred and reasonable.”
On management fees
“The Tribunal does have concerns over the standard of maintenance including a series of areas identified as in poor condition within the Respondent's site inspection report of October 2022.”
Of Respondent / managing agent
“it is noted from the photographs supplied that the building looks to be in a very poor and neglected condition with various signs of disrepair. Numerous risk assessment improvements are identified within the October 2022 report. Without imputing liability in any future claims, these proceedings should have highlighted wider concerns over the condition of the building and the Respondent is alerted to the need for the building to be actively managed.”
Of Respondent / managing agent
“However, the legal authorities should have been submitted earlier.”
Of Respondent's counsel
“the Respondent advanced lengthy arguments taking up hearing time in an attempt to strike out the entire proceedings, which did not succeed.”
Of Respondent

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.