CAM/33UF/LIS/2021/0014 — service charge decision
In CAM/33UF/LIS/2021/0014, decided 20 December 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 18 disputed service charge items at Trafalgar Court, 42 Cromer Road, Mundesley, Norfolk NR11 8DB and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Trafalgar Court, 42 Cromer Road, Mundesley, Norfolk NR11 8DB
Decision date: 20 December 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Maunder Taylor.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2011-12) | £16,536.42 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2011-12) | £3,630 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2011-12) | £2,160 | £2,160 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2011-12) | £8,925.08 | £8,925.08 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2011-12) | £3,500 | £3,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2011-12) | £6,500 | £6,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2011-12) | £240 | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2011-12) | £60 | £60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2011-12) | £96.70 | £96.70 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2011-12) | £35.22 | £35.22 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2011-12) | £190 | £190 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2011-12) | £99.60 | £99.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2012) | £1,219.64 | £1,219.64 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2012) | £5.50 | £5.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2012) | £720 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2012) | £650 | £650 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2012) | £485 | £355 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Major works (2012) | £76,110.22 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the relevant Respondents are to be treated as having paid their service charge proportion of the £92,646.64.”
“in our assessment, these costs were not reasonably incurred.”
“We are satisfied this cost was reasonably incurred; the failure to give the preliminary notice meant the landlord did not have the requisite formal reasonable period in which to improve matters.”
“we are satisfied that the £8,925.08 was reasonably incurred.”
“In our assessment, it was reasonably incurred and is payable, even bearing in mind the small items which have been charged in addition to the management fee.”
“We are satisfied that the fee claimed was reasonably incurred and is payable.”
“As we said in the Manager Decision, the Applicant should have known it had no right to this £2,100.”
“After a long delay, the Applicant produced a very large demand, at least some of which does not appear to have been justified. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no further progress was made.”
“both parties have dragged up all their old grievances, concerns and arguments in these proceedings, forgetting that most of them have already been dealt with in previous decisions or are outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal, but this should be the end of the road.”
“They should have responded more constructively to the demands”
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.