CAM/33UD/LBC/2021/0009 & others — service charge decision
In CAM/33UD/LBC/2021/0009 & others, decided 28 June 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 21A Trafalgar Road, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk NR30 2LD and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 21A Trafalgar Road, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk NR30 2LD
Decision date: 28 June 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Tarrants.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £9,017.23 | £2,484 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,033.56 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £600 | £300 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £180 | £180 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £74 | £74 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £29.90 | £29.90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £31.17 | £31.17 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“our assessment is that most of the legal costs included in the demand were unreasonable… the maximum reasonable amount of time spent at £165 per hour for the legal work done until and including 20 November 2021 was 15 hours (150 units), the sum of £2,475. The Land Registry fees of £9 are reasonable and payable in addition.”
“There was no real evidence that the Applicants had been unable to earn any specified amounts of money or lost any opportunity, or suffered any other losses (apart from the specific expenses allowed below) as a direct or indirect result of the relevant breaches.”
“the first report had been for the entire building; he proposed that the Respondent should pay half the cost. We are satisfied that it was reasonable to seek advice from a surveyor and, looking at the overall contents of the report, the sum of £300 is reasonable and payable by the Respondent.”
“the subsequent report in October 2021 was prepared solely to inspect (externally) the windows in the Respondent's flat. We are satisfied that the fee of £180 was reasonable to inspect, check on the progress of the works and produce the report.”
“our assessment is that most of the legal costs included in the demand were unreasonable.”
“the correspondence from Mr Bannell in 2020 attempting to blame the Respondent for the failures by the previous landlord to clear/repair the gutters gave the Respondent reasonable cause for suspicion about the demands from March 2021 for work on the windows.”
“the approach in the correspondence from the Applicants' solicitors was confusing. That correspondence used a survey report which referred to major to minor potential items across the entire building and gave a detailed breakdown of issues with the interior and then a list of issues with the exterior. It did not make it clear enough that the Respondent was being asked to repair the exterior as well as the interior of the windows and window sills.”
“the Applicants' solicitors no doubt acted only on instructions, but their correspondence was lengthy and frequent, writing as if the repair of the windows was extremely urgent and as if the Respondent was a litigation lawyer, not a private individual who had repeatedly explained that his resources were very limited (having already informed the Applicants that he had been on furlough during the pandemic) and plainly did not understand the position he was in.”
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.