CAM/22UN/LSC/2020/0022 — service charge decision
In CAM/22UN/LSC/2020/0022, decided 5 November 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 25 disputed service charge items at 6-10 Granville Road, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 6-10 Granville Road, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex
Decision date: 5 November 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Powell & Co Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2011) | — | — | Allowed in full | Other grounds |
| Management fees (2011) | £250 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2011) | £547 | — | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Major works (2011) | — | — | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Buildings insurance (2012) | — | — | Allowed in full | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2012) | £600 | — | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Major works (2012) | £10,440 | £787.30 | Reduced | Works not necessary |
| Major works (2012) | — | — | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Buildings insurance (2013) | — | — | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement, Other grounds |
| Major works (2013) | — | — | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Other charges (2013) | — | — | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Buildings insurance (2014) | — | — | Allowed in full | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2014) | — | — | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Buildings insurance (2015) | £156 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015) | £650 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2016) | £156 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016) | £650 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017) | £162 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017) | £700 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £206 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | £700 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £170 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £700 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £82 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £750 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“This is the first example where an objection must fail for the reasons set out above based upon the percentage issue.”
“The second item is the management fee. This was set at £250 and at the hearing the applicant conceded that this was a reasonable level of charge.”
“the service charge fee of £547 and the s.20 charge these are both caught by the Cain approach and are therefore unaltered by the Tribunal.”
“the service charge fee of £547 and the s.20 charge these are both caught by the Cain approach and are therefore unaltered by the Tribunal.”
“This is the next example where an objection must fail for the reasons set out above based upon the percentage issue.”
“the service charge fee of £600 and the s.20 charges these are both caught by the Cain approach and are therefore unaltered by the Tribunal.”
“It was apparent to the Tribunal that Mr Powell was involved in the block in three different capacities as set out in the paragraph above and that this might lead to conflicts of interest.”
“it was apparent to the tribunal that there were significant potential conflict issues that were highlighted in this decision and which related specifically to the landlord, managing agent and lessee of one of the flats. The percentage charges were a significant element of the original charge dispute and were only removed by the respondent at quite a late stage in these proceedings once the variation had been effected. Accordingly, it can be seen that the tribunal did take issue with elements of the conduct of the respondents and could see where the applicant was able to take issue with the conduct of the service charge accounting process.”
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.