CAM/11UF/LSC/2022/0054 — service charge decision
In CAM/11UF/LSC/2022/0054, decided 19 April 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 28 Tom Evans Court, Coningsby Road, High Wycombe, Bucks HP13 5FF and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 28 Tom Evans Court, Coningsby Road, High Wycombe, Bucks HP13 5FF
Decision date: 19 April 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Jennings & Barrett.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2014-2020) | £8,064 | £8,064 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020) | £120 | £120 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2014-2023) | £27,258.24 | £11,155.80 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the amount payable by Mr. Ali in respect of service charges for the period 2014 to 2020 is £8,064, being the estimated-on account charges levied in each year, which we find are reasonable and payable.”
“There was no challenge made before us to the small administration charge of £120 which we allow”
“I consider that a just and equitable figure for the costs before the FTT would be £7,500 plus VAT of £1,500… Counsel's fees of £1,600 plus VAT of £320 and disbursements of £235.80, making a total of £11,155.80”
“Mr. Ali has not, in truth, engaged in these proceedings. They have been under way since 2021. He does not appear to have made any attempt to contact the Applicant to resolve the issues he sees as being subject to challenge. His attempt to introduce evidence at the 11th hour has been refused, but in truth even his late submissions were nothing more than a fishing expedition, centred on his allegation that the invoices produced to him did not add up to the sums shown in the accountants, although he produced nothing to show this.”
“Again, I find the time spent in correspondence with the Applicant to be excessive with the Applicant, in excess of 12 ½ hours. The same can be said of the correspondence with the Respondent. There is over 6 hours spent ion communication with others which seems high. In addition, there is, in my finding excessive use of Grade A fee earners.”
“Again, the time spent on correspondence with the Applicant is excessive, 6 ½ hours at the full grade A rate. Indeed, it seems that the involvement of lower grade fee earners did not happen in this period, save for one instance.”
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.