CHI/00HE/LSC/2024/0088 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HE/LSC/2024/0088, decided 5 February 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 23 disputed service charge items at Jace Court, Priory Road, St Austell, Cornwall and found largely for the leaseholder: 21 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Jace Court, Priory Road, St Austell, Cornwall
Decision date: 5 February 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2018) | £11,129 | £11,129 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019) | — | £11,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2020) | — | £9,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2021) | — | £9,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2022) | £18,746 | £14,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2023) | £15,030 | £12,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2024) | — | £12,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2025) | — | £12,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2025) | — | £2,800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2025) | £5,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2018-2019) | £6,700 | £3,350 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2019-2020) | £6,700 | £3,350 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2020-2021) | £6,700 | £3,350 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2021-2022) | £6,700 | £3,350 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2022-2023) | £7,950 | £3,350 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2023-2024) | £7,950 | £3,350 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2024-2025) | £9,500 | £3,350 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2025) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2024) | £500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2025) | £500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2025) | £5,500 | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Using the 2018 gas cost of £11,129 as a base... the Tribunal determines that the following gas charges are reasonable. 2018 - £11,129”
“the Tribunal determines that the following gas charges are reasonable. 2019 - £11,000”
“the Tribunal determines that the following gas charges are reasonable. 2020 - £9,000”
“the Tribunal determines that the following gas charges are reasonable. 2021 - £9,000”
“Subsequent charges in 2021-22 £18,746... were based on estimated readings... 2022 - £14,000”
“2022-23 £15,030 were based on estimated readings... 2023 - £12,000”
“The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to manage the gas account to an acceptable standard. It has failed to account properly to the Applicants and has not disclosed the dispute on charges in a timely manner.”
“This illustrates the extreme difficulty presented to the Tribunal by the lack of engagement and compliance with directions on the part of the Respondents.”
“Estate Costs are described by Managing Agents as including items such as Insurance, window cleaning, snow clearance, gardening and lightening conductor service. This is unsatisfactory. A lump sum is included in budgets without explanation.”
“The Respondent has taken no effective part in the proceedings, and this is regrettable.”
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.