CHI/00HG/LSC/2023/0079 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HG/LSC/2023/0079, decided 15 February 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 10 Wyoming Close, Little America, Plymouth and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 10 Wyoming Close, Little America, Plymouth
Decision date: 15 February 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Plymouth Community Homes.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2021/2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022/2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022/2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2022/2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds that there is no evidence in the bundle which substantiates the claim by the Applicant that PCH commissioned any drainage repairs which related to the main drains. The evidence supplied shows that the drains which were repaired are private 'estate drains'. The costs of repairs is recoverable as a Fund A service charge.”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has provided any evidence which demonstrated that PCH has charged more than once for repairs to a downpipe or that the repairs it carried out were inadequate.”
“The Applicant has received a break down of the ad-hoc charges together with clarification that demonstrated that fly tipping charges were not charged for within this heading but separately.”
“The Respondent had accepted, before the hearing, that the cost of the fencing was initially charged to the wrong service charge fund but this error had been corrected. The wrong entries were corrected in both service charge years and the charges were not duplicated.”
“The wrong entries were corrected in both service charge years and the charges were not duplicated.”
“Although the Applicant has suggested that the repairs to the roof of some buildings undertaken by the Respondent 'will not solve the problem', he has offered the Tribunal no explanation why he has reached this conclusion.”
“Mr Ward and Miss Lake accepted that the letter could have been better worded.”
“It was acknowledged that the narrative on the invoices was incorrect but the Respondent was confident that the charges made were correct.”
“PCH acknowledged (in the letter) that the charge for the safety barrier had been made to the wrong fund and stated that this should have been noticed before and the error would be rectified.”
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.