CHI/00HN/LSC/2022/0056 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HN/LSC/2022/0056, decided 15 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 33b Carbery Avenue, Bournemouth and found largely for the leaseholder: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 33b Carbery Avenue, Bournemouth
Decision date: 15 November 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Initiative Property Management Ltd (IPM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2020-2021) | £1,665 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020-2021) | £214.80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2021) | £242 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2021) | £62.66 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2021) | £293 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2021) | £73.33 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Cleaning (2020-2021) | £100 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Buildings insurance (2019-2021) | £114.48 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“There is nothing in the lease which permits this and the Tribunal finds that costs of employing a management agent are not recoverable.”
“On examination of the lease the Tribunal finds that there is no provision which permits the Respondent to claim the costs of Health and Safety issues and the charges proposed are not payable.”
“The Tribunal finds that the lease states clearly which fences fall under the Applicant's responsibility, and these are marked with a T. The rear fence is not part of her covenant, and the proposed charges are not payable.”
“In the light of the agreed facts the Tribunal finds that this fence is not a boundary fence and not one which the Applicant must pay a share of the cost of repairs.”
“There is no evidence of the expenditure nor whether the works were necessary or reasonably incurred. The provision of a bank statement such as that provided is insufficient evidence. Furthermore, no demand in compliance with statute has been made.”
“the costs referred to are not payable due to the absence of a competent demand supported by receipts.”
“The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has had sufficient information from the outset to respond in full to the application and chose not to comply with directions in respect of the bundle. He has suffered no prejudice.”
“The Respondent said that he had not managed to send in receipts and agreed that documentation was required in order to substantiate a claim.”
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.