CHI/00HH/LSC/2022/0111 & others — service charge decision
In CHI/00HH/LSC/2022/0111 & others, decided 26 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at 15 and 28 Holme Court, Lower Warberry Road, Torquay, Devon TQ1 1QR and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 15 and 28 Holme Court, Lower Warberry Road, Torquay, Devon TQ1 1QR
Decision date: 26 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Carrick Johnson Management Services Limited (CJMS).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016-17) | £38,867 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Gardening & grounds (2017-18) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Gardening & grounds (2018-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Gardening & grounds (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Gardening & grounds (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Gardening & grounds (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | £14,795.55 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds, confirming what it told the parties at the hearing, that the Applicant's claim that the consultation process was not followed correctly in relation to the major works has not been proven.”
“the Tribunal finds that they have failed to submit any evidence which demonstrated that the service charge expenditure on the swimming pool in 2016/2017 was unreasonable.”
“the Applicant has not demonstrated that the gardening costs incurred in any of the service charge years between 2017 and 2022 are unreasonable.”
“the Applicant has not demonstrated that the gardening costs incurred in any of the service charge years between 2017 and 2022 are unreasonable.”
“the Applicant has not demonstrated that the gardening costs incurred in any of the service charge years between 2017 and 2022 are unreasonable.”
“the Applicant has not demonstrated that the gardening costs incurred in any of the service charge years between 2017 and 2022 are unreasonable.”
“Miss Hart appears unable or perhaps unwilling to understand that when submitting evidence in support of the Applications, she needs to provide objective evidence, not rely upon unattributed third party comments or the undocumented recollections of other leaseholders.”
“Miss Hart's references to Phillips and Francis and 'sets of works' is misleading. She has muddled the provisions about long term qualifying agreements for services ( in this instance gardening and cleaning) with a decision which dealt with consultation in respect of 'sets of works'”
“Miss Hart had also breached crown copyright by cutting and pasting the judicial crest on to the front sheets of both her statements in the bundle… the Tribunal has concluded that whilst Miss Hart may not have intended to deliberately mislead any leaseholder, her actions could be interpreted as deliberate misrepresentation.”
“Sadly, undeterred by the advice received from the Tribunal, Miss Hart repeated those submissions throughout the hearing.”
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.