CAM/33UB/LIS/2021/0032 — service charge decision
In CAM/33UB/LIS/2021/0032, decided 1 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Flat 16, The Shire Hall, Swaffham, Norfolk PE37 7TU and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 16, The Shire Hall, Swaffham, Norfolk PE37 7TU
Decision date: 1 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mr Saffell and Mr Smart (Brown & Co / successor agents).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2015-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Demand formally invalid |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017) | £146.58 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £4.61 | £4.61 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £86.72 | £86.72 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £20.72 | £20.72 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £10.94 | £10.94 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £17.64 | £17.64 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £48.80 | £48.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £24.48 | £24.48 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £4.12 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £49.04 | £26.98 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the obligation upon the Applicant to pay any shortfall for the years ending 2015 and 2021 is conditional upon there being served a 'service charge statement' which complies in all respects with the 6th Schedule”
“without any further detail justifying the large sum incurred, we cannot be satisfied the sum was reasonable in amount. We therefore disallow the Applicant's share of £146.58.”
“We determine that this was routine regular maintenance, that it was reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount, bearing in mind the 3 years which had elapsed since the Draper and Nichols work.”
“We therefore find the works to have reasonably incurred, the costs reasonably incurred, and also reasonable in amount.”
“We therefore find the works to have reasonably incurred, the costs reasonably incurred, and also reasonable in amount.”
“We accept the Respondents' evidence and find that the cost was reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
“It is correct, however, to say that the statements do not contain a certificate from an accountant to the effect that it is a true and correct summary of expenditure on services, as A(iv)(c) of Sch. 6 requires.”
“At the hearing on 25 April 2022 it was clear to the Tribunal that neither party had complied with the Tribunal directions dated 11 January 2022. In particular there was no Scott Schedule to work from, and no receipts were included in the bundle prepared by the Applicant.”
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.