CAM/33UG/LSC/2020/0048 — service charge decision
In CAM/33UG/LSC/2020/0048, decided 1 February 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 71 Vanguard Chase, New Costessey, Norwich, Norfolk and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 71 Vanguard Chase, New Costessey, Norwich, Norfolk
Decision date: 1 February 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Watson Property Group.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2013-2020) | £2,000 | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2019) | £1,176 | £430 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2019) | £141.12 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“I am not satisfied that the contribution made by the Applicant to the sinking fund in respect of external decoration, was reasonable.”
“I prefer the evidence of the Applicant to the Respondent as to what works were carried out... I estimate that the works which were done to a satisfactory standard were half that which the Applicant has secured a quote for at £860 / 2 = £430; of which the Applicant's 62.5% share is £268.75.”
“In light of the Managing agents failure to define the works at the tendering stage, to secure detailed quotes... together with the failure to supervise or check the work, I do not consider that payment of any project management fee is reasonable.”
“It is not clear that any thought has been given to this nor that this has been kept under review. The Respondent has not addressed this aspect. Indeed it is not clear on the evidence adduced why painting works were undertaken in 2019, as opposed to 2018, 2017 or 2020; there is filed by the Respondent no pre-works inspection report nor photographs, nor evidence of condition to show what needed doing - despite the application referring to the shared areas "not being in need of regular redecoration", thereby putting the matter in issue”
“the Respondent has not adduced in evidence the specification given pre-tender to the contractors who were asked to quote, nor do their quotes detail what they are quoting for.”
“The managing agents have charged a fee of £141.60, seen in their invoice but do not detail what work they did for this project management in respect of these external redecorations. They do not say if they inspected, and if so when; there is disclosed no site visit, whether before or after the works were done; whilst they refer in a report to the Lessor on 21st May 2019 to "periodic inspections during the course of the redecoration", they do not detail when they took place.”
“The inclusion of "if applicable" has the hallmarks of an instruction coming from someone who had not inspected to identify what needed doing.”
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.