CHI/00HB/LSC/2020/0089 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HB/LSC/2020/0089, decided 21 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flats 1-7, 99B and Flats 2-7, 99C Redland Road, Bristol and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1-7, 99B and Flats 2-7, 99C Redland Road, Bristol
Decision date: 21 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HML Group Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £2,810 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £38,620.89 | £38,620.89 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £900 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £2,250 | £2,250 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-21) | £1,041 | £1,041 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £10,621 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient, Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal disallows the costs of the 2018 works to the extent that they related to dry rot works, being the £1,785 and £1,025 identified in both the 2017 Quote and 2018 Invoice.”
“The works in 2020 were more extensive and followed a survey of the properties. There is no suggestion that in themselves they were not to a reasonable standard and they are allowed in full.”
“the additional £900 challenged in the supplemental reply for relocation costs incurred as a result of these works, fails.”
“the Tribunal noted this was an old building which had been subject to conversion and was not satisfied on the evidence as to the cause of the deterioration. Ultimately it considered it was more likely that this was an item of general maintenance arising from deterioration due to age. Accordingly, the replacement costs are allowed.”
“The Tribunal considers that these items are properly payable by the Applicants. It is often a choice of the landlord whether to carry out patch repairs or more extensive works.”
“no demand has yet been made for the cost of these works and secondly, there was insufficient evidence before the Tribunal as to the impact, if any, of any historic neglect.”
“Worryingly that refers to wet rot, when it should have been dry rot.”
“The actual dry rot treatment was sub-contracted to DJ Williams who provided a certificate of guarantee, strangely dated 16th September 2017 (i.e. before works or even the initial quote).”
“The Respondent's explanation as to why the guarantee had not been relevant was not satisfactory. The Respondent was unable to say why the insurer had refused cover. The reason for this was the managing agent's personnel had changed with the result that not only was there no one who knew what had happened, but the relevant employees emails had been deleted.”
“The Tribunal struggles to see what benefit accrued from the works carried out in 2018. The failure to carry out a proper survey (as was eventually done in 2019) meant that the works were of limited if any value.”
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.