CHI/00HN/LSC/2020/0050 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HN/LSC/2020/0050, decided 7 October 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 33B Carbery Avenue, Bournemouth, BH6 3LN and found largely for the leaseholder: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 33B Carbery Avenue, Bournemouth, BH6 3LN
Decision date: 7 October 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Initiative Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2020-21) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2020-21) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-21) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds that the lease does not allow the Respondent to reclaim the costs of engaging a managing agent through the service charge.”
“The Tribunal finds no reference to any form of landlord's administration costs in the terms of the lease and can see, therefore, no basis upon which this can be claimed as part of the service charge.”
“there is no provision within the Lease which would allow the Respondent to demand any payment towards a reserve fund.”
“Nor does the Lease allow the Respondent to demand from the Applicant a contribution towards the cost to him of insuring the Lower Premises.”
“Nor does the Lease allow the Respondent to demand a contribution from the Applicant towards Health and Safety as there is no mention of this within the Lease.”
“The Tribunal finds it remarkable that both a professional managing agent and a solicitor would each insist upon such payment in the absence of any authority in the lease to do so. That the managing agent was so insistent and appears to have relied upon a lease to which the Applicant was not a party is indefensible.”
“The Respondent appears to have placed his trust in others, but provided them with a lease that has no relevance whatsoever to this Applicant. Those whom he trusted appear to have had no regard to the obvious lack of relevance and to have pursued the Applicant regardless.”
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.