CHI/00HG/LSC/2022/0071-72 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HG/LSC/2022/0071-72, decided 12 April 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 34 Herbert Street, Plymouth PL2 1RX; 96 Rothesay Gardens, Plymouth PL5 3TA; 146 Rothesay Gardens, Plymouth PL5 3TA and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 34 Herbert Street, Plymouth PL2 1RX; 96 Rothesay Gardens, Plymouth PL5 3TA; 146 Rothesay Gardens, Plymouth PL5 3TA
Decision date: 12 April 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2021) | £465.47 | £465.47 | conceded | — |
| Major works (2019) | £7,965.60 | £7,965.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £7,965.60 | £7,965.60 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Mr Knapper conceded on behalf of the Respondent that it had no defence to the Claim for £465.47 and that the Respondent was liable to pay the disputed sum.”
“The costs of £7,965.60 for the roofs and exterior works for each of the properties at 96 and 146 Rothesay Gardens were reasonably incurred.”
“The Respondent is liable to pay the sum of £7,965.60 and demanded on 15 October 2019 in respect of the works at 146 Rothesay Gardens, Plymouth PL5 3TA”
“The Tribunal has described the procedural history in detail to demonstrate the latitude given by the Applicant and the Tribunal to the Respondent to enable it to put forward its case for disputing liability to meet the service charge for the replacements of roofs at the two properties.”
“The Tribunal explained that, given the opportunities the Respondent had been provided to crystalise its defence, it would be prejudicial to the Applicant to deal with a new argument and contrary to the overriding objective.”
“The Tribunal considers the Respondent's approach to the issue of construction was not correct. This approach involved examining the terms of the lease in isolation which in turn created a conflict with the statutory terms set out in Schedule 6, and that conflict, according to the Respondent, could only be resolved by the Tribunal deciding what the intentions of the parties were at the time of the grant of the lease.”
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.