CHI/00HB/LSC/2023/0053 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HB/LSC/2023/0053, decided 12 January 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, Barton Court, Whitefield Road, Bristol and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, Barton Court, Whitefield Road, Bristol
Decision date: 12 January 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hawkshaw & Barlow Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Cleaning (2022) | £525 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £48.57 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2022) | £200 | £200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £352 | £176 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £98 | £98 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £700 | £700 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £456 | £456 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £768 | £768 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022) | £375 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2022) | £6,000 | £4,000 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal has found no provision in Schedule 7 of the Lease which would enable the Respondent to recharge the cost of belonging to a Property Redress Scheme as a Service Cost.”
“In the absence of any invoices evidencing these cleaning charges the Tribunal finds that this amount is not recoverable as service charges in 2022.”
“In the absence of conclusive information to back up the Respondent's submission that this cost should be allowed it finds that this charge is not a relevant cost and should not be included as a service charge in 2022.”
“Having considered both parties arguments the Tribunal has concluded that these costs are all relevant costs and the charges made are reasonable.”
“In the absence of physical evidence, which the Respondent should have provided, the Tribunal will allow 50% of the charge - £176.00.”
“Having considered both parties arguments the Tribunal has concluded that these costs are all relevant costs and the charges made are reasonable.”
“The Respondent could and should have explained to the Applicant why these costs were incurred. It could have disclosed information about the Balmoral inspection and its subsequent recommendations. It could also have explained the anomaly with regard to the timing of the charge to the service charge account and the actual works taking place.”
“The Respondent has a responsibility to be transparent about the service charges.”
“The Tribunal does not accept the Respondent's arguments that it was unnecessary to respond to the Applicant with evidence of the costs which the Respondent incurred for supplying cleaning services.”
“The way in which the Respondent failed to deal with the Applicant's request for information about the insurance suggests to the Tribunal that may not have been familiar with its obligations under the Lease regarding buildings insurance and the required disclosure of information, all things which a competent management company should have been able to deal with.”
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.