CHI/00HE/LSC/2022/0003 & others — service charge decision
In CHI/00HE/LSC/2022/0003 & others, decided 31 August 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 3 The Carriage House, Killiow Park, Kea, Truro, Cornwall and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 3 The Carriage House, Killiow Park, Kea, Truro, Cornwall
Decision date: 31 August 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Belmont Property Management (Mr Martin Foy).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2021) | £2,480 | £2,480 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2013-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2013-2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The costs disclosed do not demonstrate the existence of any contractual agreement with a supplier for regular expenditure that will exceed £600 per year and result in any of the six leaseholders paying more than £100.”
“The Tribunal has not seen any information, documents or evidence which indicated that the provisional contribution of £1,240 demanded from the Applicant in respect of each of her two leases (a total of £2,480) is for the redecoration of any part of the estate which belongs to another leaseholder.”
“Leaseholders are only obliged to pay service charges which are reasonably incurred and where works have been carried out to a reasonable standard.”
“the works carried out to an individual leaseholder's garden are not services within the definition in the lease and therefore cannot be discharged from the service charge fund and do not constitute service charges.”
“the leases contain a contractual obligation for the Applicant to contribute one sixth of the cost of the joint insurance premium in each lease. Therefore, the contribution of one third of the cost of the premium is correct.”
“The Tribunal has concluded that the Respondent, in breach of its obligations under the lease, has not set up a reserve fund.”
“Mr Foy has not provided any more information about the specification for the external redecoration despite agreeing at the CMH to obtain a more detailed breakdown of decorating costs and by 6 May 2022 which he was to send to the Applicant. If he could not obtain more details, he was supposed to send her an explanation of the reason.”
“Belmont are aware that this is wrong but has not attempted to rectify the error. Instead, they have compounded it by not correcting the error when obtaining an assessment of the insurance cover, as is evidenced by the property description in the December 2020 reinstatement cost assessment [148].”
“The Respondent was directed by the Tribunal to explain why the insurance reinstatement costs assessment [148] identified that the building comprised six units not five. It has not complied with that direction.”
“The management information produced by Belmont is not compliant with the provisions of the Lease. It does not accord with the recommended guidance referred to above. The Tribunal is concerned that Mr Foy has justified the presentation of the information he has disclosed on the basis that the information was prepared in accordance with the members wishes. Had that actually been the case, it is unlikely that there would have been a need for this application.”
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.