CHI/00HC/LSC/2021/0075 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HC/LSC/2021/0075, decided 30 September 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 45 & 46 Watch House Place, Portishead, Bristol and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 45 & 46 Watch House Place, Portishead, Bristol
Decision date: 30 September 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Firstport Property Services Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2015-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2015-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2016-17) | £2,718.73 | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Major works (2018-19) | £3,042.18 | £3,034.65 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Major works (2016-21) | — | £0 | conceded | Demand formally invalid |
| Administration charges (2015-2021) | £60 | £0 | conceded | Other grounds |
Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal decided that the management costs and Concierge and On Call costs charged by the Respondent are reasonable.”
“The Tribunal decided that the management costs and Concierge and On Call costs charged by the Respondent are reasonable.”
“The Respondent stated that it would refund to the Block's sinking fund of £100.00 (so slightly more than the difference) as a gesture of goodwill.”
“The Respondent accepted that it ought to have taken £3,034.65. The Respondent said that it would therefore refund the £7.53 difference to the sinking fund, together with a further £42.57.”
“the Respondent had conceded that the sum demanded in respect of balcony works had not been properly demanded and so was not due.”
“The Respondent also conceded the £60 administration fees charged in relation to non-payment of service charges that the Applicant asserted were not due are not payable.”
“The Tribunal does not therefore set out the provisions of the Lease at great length. It was apparently accepted by the parties that the Lease entitled the Respondent to raise service charges for the elements charged for…”
“Regrettably, at that final hearing date, the case was nowhere near ready to be tried.”
“The Tribunal cannot be expected to wade document by document through a bundle as substantial as 956 pages where the majority of the documents are not ones to which the parties feel any need to draw the Tribunal's attention in the remainder of their written cases.”
“The Tribunal is very much mindful that there was no reference to such applications made in the hearing. The Tribunal accepts that at least in part that was a failing on the part of the Tribunal to raise the matters with the parties and identify their up to dates positions and whether Counsel sought to make any submissions.”
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.