CHI/00HB/LSC/2003/0056 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HB/LSC/2003/0056, decided 3 May 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 56B North Street, Bedminster, Bristol BS3 1HJ and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 56B North Street, Bedminster, Bristol BS3 1HJ
Decision date: 3 May 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mr David Williams (director).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £935 | £935 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £445 | £410 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020) | £540 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Major works (2021) | £10,605 | £8,484 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2021) | £540 | £540 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £65 | £65 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022) | £540 | £450 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £36 | £36 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023) | £540 | £405 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £536 | £536 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“£935 in respect of roof repairs that year”
“the amount of the total cost was stated at the hearing to be £1,640. The charge to the Applicant if the cost was £1,640 would be £410, which is 25% of £1,640.”
“it cannot be reasonable where the Respondent declines to fulfil its responsibilities in relation to the roof leak for 13 months. For 2020 only, the Tribunal determines that the management charge is unreasonable and no charge is payable.”
“The charge of £42,420 is therefore reduced by £2121 and by £6363 to £33,936. The Applicants 25% share of this cost is £8,484.”
“£540 in respect of the management charge”
“£65 for buildings insurance”
“Mr Williams had every opportunity over a period of nearly 20 years to take some legal advice about his duties as a landlord and under the Lease but chose not to do so. He could have also searched online where it is very easy to find advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service.”
“He was ready to refer to the terms of the Lease when recording that the Applicant had kept a pet when not allowed to do so and once allowed others to occupy the Property yet never made any attempt to follow the very clear Lease requirements in relation to the service charge.”
“The context in which the Tribunal has to decide the issues raised in this case is one where there are no proper certified management accounts for any year, no annual budget of estimated expenditure, no building up of reserve funds, and no end of year assessment of actual outturn against budget to show either an excess or underpayment for the year. Finally, invoices and details of the cost of repair works were not kept by Mr Williams and with cash payments being made by him without receipts, there is no actual proof of the cost of the works undoubtedly undertaken.”
“He admitted that he had no invoices for the work that had been done and no receipts for payments he had made. He paid the main contractor and four other individuals doing work in cash.”
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.