Decision summary

CAM/26UH/LIS/2022/0019 — service charge decision

In CAM/26UH/LIS/2022/0019, decided 9 October 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 6 Ross Court, Stevenage, Hertfordshire and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 6 Ross Court, Stevenage, Hertfordshire
Decision date: 9 October 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Other charges (2016-2017)£342.72£342.72conceded
Other charges (2017-2018)£684£325ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2018-2019)£739.20£325ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2019-2020)£621.12£350ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2020-2021)£806.88£350ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2021-2022)£1,149.12£375ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2022-2023)£631.20£400ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost

Key passages (verbatim)

“the total fire protection cost of £342.72 per annum (£7.14 per week spread over 48 weeks) during the hearing this was accepted by the applicant as reasonable as he recalled there may have been some costs in addition to the inspection and service.”
On other charges
“for 2017-2018 £325 (£6.77 per week)”
On other charges
“for 2018-2019 £325 (£6.77 per week)”
On other charges
“for 2019-2000 £350 (£7.29 per week)”
On other charges
“for 2020-2021 £350 (£7.29 per week)”
On other charges
“for 2021-2022 £375 (£7.81 per week)”
On other charges
“Despite the directions orders the respondent landlord has not filed with the tribunal the schedule of non-supported services, any Scott schedule responding to the application, any statement addressing the relevant tenancy provisions, any legal submissions on liability and reasonableness, or any statements of witnesses to be relied upon. Other than filing the tenancy agreement in March 2023 the respondent has failed to comply with directions or otherwise reply to the tribunal orders and directions or otherwise engage with the proceedings. It failed to attend the hearing despite notice of the same and without explanation.”
Of Clarion Housing Association Limited (Respondent)
“The respondent has not engaged in any way on the issue of the reasonableness of the service charges. It follows that the tribunal must do the best it can on the evidence and information before it and having regard to its own knowledge of the market as an expert tribunal.”
Of Clarion Housing Association Limited (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.