CAM/33UF/LIS/2020/0016 — service charge decision
In CAM/33UF/LIS/2020/0016, decided 26 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at 18 Trafalgar Court, 42 Cromer Road, Mundesley, Norfolk NR11 8DB and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 18 Trafalgar Court, 42 Cromer Road, Mundesley, Norfolk NR11 8DB
Decision date: 26 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2011-12) | £2,160 | £2,160 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2011-12) | £3,630 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2011-12) | £8,200 | £6,500 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2011-12) | £3,500 | £3,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2011-12) | £330 | £330 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2011-12) | £500 | £500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2011-12) | — | £1,317.97 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2012) | £720 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2012) | £650 | £650 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2012) | £750 | £485 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2012) | £561 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2012) | £547.02 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2012) | £76,110.22 | £76,110.22 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2012) | — | £2,197.17 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2011-12) | £5,790 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“this fee of £1,800 plus VAT for a conference and representing the Respondent at the hearing in February 2012 was payable as a service charge cost under the terms of the lease … and reasonably incurred.”
“these costs of unsuccessfully resisting the second application for appointment of a manager … were not reasonably incurred as service charge costs.”
“both parties agreed a major works management fee of £6,500 for this period.”
“On reflection, the Applicant agreed this charge.”
“buildings insurance would generally not be expected to cover damage from high winds to glass, he agreed the cost of £330.”
“The Applicant then agreed these costs.”
“they had both failed to act at the time of previous tribunal determinations to ensure that the relevant accounts were brought up to date in accordance with those determinations, and to resolve any issues relating to third parties while any claims were in time and the relevant records were available. Many years later, they might (or might not) both have lost out because of their own inaction, but they cannot use these proceedings to try again.”
“The Applicant did not comply with the direction requiring him to provide a detailed schedule identifying each disputed item claimed in the three lists from the Respondent and setting out his case on those disputed items. Instead, he produced a one-page schedule disputing all the charges in general terms. Similarly, he did not produce the bundles required by the directions. Instead, he produced two small bundles of documents, most of which had limited relevance to the issues in these proceedings.”
“The start of the major works had already been seriously delayed in the hands of the Respondent.”
“The manager was appointed for the reasons set out in the relevant decision (CAM/33UF/LAM/2012/0001), including serious failures of management on the part of the 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.