CAM/42UD/LSC/2022/0069 — service charge decision
In CAM/42UD/LSC/2022/0069, decided 2 April 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Focus Apartments, 45 Carr Street, Ipswich IP4 1HD and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Focus Apartments, 45 Carr Street, Ipswich IP4 1HD
Decision date: 2 April 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Principle Estate Management LLP.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | £10,630 | £10,630 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021) | £22,946 | £13,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022) | £26,000 | £13,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2022) | £15,000 | £15,000 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal determines that the interim payments made in respect of the Estate Charge for 202o is payable under the lease and reasonable in amount.”
“the tribunal determines that a reasonable contribution to the reserve fund for 2021 and 2022 is £13,500.”
“the tribunal determines that a reasonable contribution to the reserve fund for 2021 and 2022 is £13,500.”
“Given that the two quotes produced by the Applicants were in fact more than the monies paid on account, the tribunal determines that this is a reasonable sum.”
“This application could have been avoided in its entirety if the First Respondent had dealt properly with the Applicants' queries at an earlier stage and provided greater clarity as to the basis on which monies had been paid to date.”
“The tribunal was also concerned that the First Respondent's Statements of Case were unclear, mainly consisted of denials and repetition of very basic factual information and therefore added to the general confusion. The First Respondent's solicitors are experienced in proceedings before the tribunal and should therefore be fully familiar with the Tribunal's Procedure Rules, in particular the duty in rule 3 to help the Tribunal further the overriding objective which includes ensuring, as far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings. Despite their knowledge that the Applicants were acting in person, the First Respondent's drafting and correspondence was unclear and unhelpful, right up until the final hearing.”
“it should have been obvious to the First Respondent that the demands in respect of this item were unreasonable, particularly when Mr Harris for the Applicants provided a spreadsheet showing the calculation against the agent's costs. It goes without saying that this was not for the leaseholders to do in any event.”
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.