CHI/00HC/LSC/2022/0063 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HC/LSC/2022/0063, decided 29 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 3 & 4, 35 South Road, Weston super Mare, BS23 2HD and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 3 & 4, 35 South Road, Weston super Mare, BS23 2HD
Decision date: 29 November 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Powells Law.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022-23) | £9,375 | £9,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £12,400 | £6,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | £19,250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | £13,750 | £1,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | £6,875 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal deducts £375 from the amount proposed and determines that the sum of £9,000 for professional fees is a reasonable estimate and therefore payable as part of the interim service charge.”
“the sum of £12,400 based on grossing up construction scaffolding estimates is excessive. Using the budget costs at [349] and [494] as the best available evidence of the reasonable sum, the Tribunal determines that for the interim charge the sum of £6,000 is payable.”
“Clause 15 of the Sixth Schedule offers no support to this claim. Breach of lease is a specific issue separate from Service Charge provisions. There is no forfeiture provision in the leases.”
“For the purposes of an interim account, and in the absence of further evidence the Tribunal finds that an interim cost of £1,000 is a reasonable sum and determines in that amount with regard to the second element of issue 2).”
“The lease contains no express terms which clearly and unambiguously provide for such recovery. Similarly, there are no terms which satisfy an assessment as envisaged in Arnold v Britton referred to above. The Tribunal finds that costs in issue 3) are not payable.”
“Mr Matthews simply multiplied the ICS quote for construction, as opposed to inspection scaffolding, by four.”
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.