CAM/26UB/LIS/2020/0044 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UB/LIS/2020/0044, decided 6 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 22 disputed service charge items at 10, Portland Court, Brocket Road, Hoddesdon, Herts and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 10, Portland Court, Brocket Road, Hoddesdon, Herts
Decision date: 6 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Urbanpoint Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2018) | £858 | £858 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019) | £858 | £858 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2020) | £1,000 | £1,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2018) | £0 | £0 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019) | £240 | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £3,189 | £3,189 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £3,067.72 | £3,067.72 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018) | £2,724 | £2,220 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Poor standard of work |
| Management fees (2019) | £2,760 | £2,280 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Poor standard of work |
| Management fees (2020) | £3,000 | £2,400 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Poor standard of work |
| Administration charges (2020) | £600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £1,795.65 | £1,795.65 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £1,900.98 | £1,900.98 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £1,950 | £1,950 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018) | £775 | £775 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019) | £1,000 | £1,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | £1,000 | £1,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | £361.20 | £361.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £570 | £570 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2018) | £259.19 | £259.19 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019) | £543.07 | £543.07 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2020) | £500 | £500 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The charge for 2018 and 2019 was £858.00 per annum which was £33.00 per visit to vacuum the carpets and clean the surfaces with some spot cleaning to the walls... In the absence of evidence to the contrary and in the knowledge and experience of the Tribunal the cost was determined to be reasonable.”
“The charge for 2018 and 2019 was £858.00 per annum which was £33.00 per visit... In the absence of evidence to the contrary and in the knowledge and experience of the Tribunal the cost was determined to be reasonable.”
“the Tribunal found that the allowance of £1,000 for cleaning in the Estimated Service Charge for 2020 was reasonable.”
“The Tribunal found that no charge was made for the year ending 31st December 2018 nor are there any estimated costs for 2020.”
“the Tribunal determined that charge of £240.00 per annum for 2019 to be reasonable.”
“The Tribunal was satisfied that the work had been carried out, that the costs had been incurred and, in the knowledge, and experience of the Tribunal members, the charge was determined to be reasonable.”
“The current cleaners appear reliable but the standard had clearly dropped with regard to the previous cleaners. This should have been picked up by the Applicant's Managing Agent before the Tenants complained.”
“too great a reliance was placed upon Tenants to report that works need to be undertaken or to complain about the standard of work carried out before tasks were actioned.”
“too great a reliance was placed upon contractors identifying what repairs needed to be done and their extent and to ensure that the work was carried out to the requisite standard.”
“The role of the property manager cannot be conducted from the office and the Tribunal found that two visits a year to the Building was inadequate.”
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.