CHI/00HN/LIS/2021/0038 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HN/LIS/2021/0038, decided 26 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flat 2 Charlton House, 14 Bradburne Road, Bournemouth, Dorset and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2 Charlton House, 14 Bradburne Road, Bournemouth, Dorset
Decision date: 26 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: House and Son.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gardening & grounds (2018-2019 / 2019-2020 / 2020-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2018-2019 / 2019-2020 / 2020-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2018-2019 / 2019-2020 / 2020-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2018-2019 / 2019-2020 / 2020-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018-2019 / 2019-2020 / 2020-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Cleaning (2018-2019 / 2019-2020 / 2020-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018-2019 / 2019-2020 / 2020-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2018-2019 / 2019-2020 / 2020-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-2020 / 2020-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-2020 / 2020-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Applicant has failed to demonstrate the service charges to be reasonable. Whilst the Tribunal accepts a charge is reasonable for gardening work undertaken, the Tribunal has insufficient evidence of the level of work and quality of work to make any proper assessment”
“Whilst the Tribunal accepts the oral evidence that plants, in general, have been purchased, the Tribunal has insufficient evidence of those or their cost to make any proper assessment of the level of service charges reasonable”
“Save the quote produced by the Applicant is from back in 2014, exactly the same comments apply in relation to this item as did to gardening”
“The service charge would have been recoverable as claimed if service charges had been found to be payable more generally.”
“whatever that figure may be, it is very likely that the figure would have been reduced by the Tribunal to reflect work not of sufficient standard.”
“Save that there is not even a quote for window cleaning produced by the Applicant, the essential problem identified in i) above applies in relation to this item.”
“The Applicant effectively ignored both sets of Directions from the Tribunal in relation to the completion of the Scott Schedule.”
“The evidence presented by the Applicant was unsatisfactory at best. There was simply no evidence that the requirements of the Lease had been complied with, where the various failings served to cast considerable doubt as to compliance and where even the additional oral information could not assist.”
“Mr Coleby and Mr Sheffield appeared taken by surprise by that issue as to the provisions of the Lease. That served to indicate that the provisions had not been carefully scrutinized and understood. That in turn increase the likelihood that there had been a failure to sufficiently consider the other provisions of the Lease in respect of demands for service charges and to comply with those.”
“The impression created overall was that the approach taken to service charges may reflect the more recent leases held by the five lessees who participated in the Applicant company, rather than complying with the older leases.”
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.