CAM/11UB/LIS/2020/0002 — service charge decision
In CAM/11UB/LIS/2020/0002, decided 14 April 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 27 Quercetum Close, Aylesbury, HP19 8JN and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 27 Quercetum Close, Aylesbury, HP19 8JN
Decision date: 14 April 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Crabtree Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016/17) | — | £574.53 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2017/18) | — | £841.42 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Ground-rent-adjacent charges (2017/18) | £86 | £24 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018/19) | £223.62 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018/19) | £1,234.40 | £1,034.40 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2018/19) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2018/19) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Taking the actual expenditure set out on page 117 of the bundle and applying the Service Charge Proportion stated in the Sixth Schedule of the applicant's lease, together with a deduction to take account of the fact that the applicant bought the property on 15 July 2016, the tribunal determines that £574.53 is payable in respect of 2016/17.”
“Applying the Service Charge Proportion to the actual expenditure shown in the accounts and taking into account the reduction of the Ground Rent Collection Fee, the tribunal determines that the amount payable by the applicant for 2017/2018 is £841.42.”
“The tribunal does not consider that £86 is reasonable for the collection of ground rent, even if it is to cover two years. In the circumstances the tribunal allows £24, inclusive of Vat, double the minimum amount stated in the agreement.”
“The applicant was charged £223.62 for the reserve fund and £1,010.78 for the service charge, the same as the interim charge for 2017/18.”
“the tribunal considers that a reduction of £200 should be applied, meaning that a total of £1,034.40 is payable by the applicant in respect of the interim service charge including the reserve fund contribution for 2018/19.”
“In the light of the failure by Crabtree to engage meaningfully with Mr Rogan, the tribunal determines that the £300 'additional management fee' is not payable.”
“There was absolutely no evidence in the bundle, prepared by the respondents, that Crabtree had considered Mr Rogan's objections in February 2018 before passing the file to its debt collectors in October 2018.”
“The tribunal also notes that the letters are in standard form and make no attempt to answer any of Mr Rogan's queries.”
“The tribunal considers that if Crabtree had explained in clear terms that the handover date was a red herring and explained why additional monies were due, the entire problem would have gone away.”
“This application was mainly due to the failure of Crabtree to explain to a leaseholder and Company member why his liability arose. Their letter in respect of the handover from the developer was the initial cause of the confusion and they made no meaningful attempt to assist Mr Rogan by dealing with his queries.”
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.