CAM/22UJ/LSC/2020/0032 — service charge decision
In CAM/22UJ/LSC/2020/0032, decided 25 January 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 18 disputed service charge items at 138 The Hornbeams, Harlow, Essex and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 138 The Hornbeams, Harlow, Essex
Decision date: 25 January 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Savills.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £225 | £225 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £280 | £280 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £302 | £302 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £183.17 | £183.17 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £165.08 | £165.08 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £3,947.08 | £3,552.37 | Reduced | Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £1,719 | £1,719 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £465.42 | £465.42 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £1,343.57 | £1,343.57 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £250 | £125 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Major works (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £664.65 | £664.65 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £162.50 | £162.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £29 | £29 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £155 | £155 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £180 | £180 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £193.75 | £193.75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £250 | £250 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018/2019-2019/2020) | £1,110.98 | £1,110.98 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Mr Prescott explained that whilst the main compound was at the Hides and the preliminary costs had been split proportionally between the two sites. We accept this analysis and allow £225.00.”
“just because there was not a skip on site, it did not mean that costs were not incurred in transporting the waste to the skip at the Hides. We allow £280.00.”
“The same comment apply as above. We allow £302.00.”
“The same comments apply as above. We allow £183.17.”
“The same comments apply as above. We allow 165.08.”
“We accept that there were some shortcomings in the staffing... we give an allowance of 10% for this. We allow £3,552.37.”
“We accept that there were some shortcomings in the staffing, and the First Applicant had to suffer some rudeness.”
“We accept that the contractors broke the Applicants' store cupboard door and deduct £125.00.”
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.