CHI/00ML/LBC/2020/0031 — service charge decision
In CHI/00ML/LBC/2020/0031, decided 4 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Lower Ground Floor Flat, 37 Goldstone Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 3RN and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Lower Ground Floor Flat, 37 Goldstone Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 3RN
Decision date: 4 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Pepper Fox Management Ltd / Gareth Elliott.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“No breach. The only evidence of 'nuisance or annoyance' in the general sense of these words, would appear to be to the landlord as the work was done without his consent. However, this would not appear to the Tribunal to be the sort of nuisance or annoyance anticipated by this clause.”
“There has been a breach on the facts as alleged above.”
“No Breach. Whilst the Respondent has not suggested that he approached the local authority with regard to the partition wall, it is for the Applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that Building Regulation approval was necessary and no such evidence or submission has been provided.”
“No breach. Notice was given to the Respondent to remove the partition wall and re-instate the property to its original condition. There is no separate allegation that any other repair, maintenance or decoration is needed.”
“There has been a breach. The Respondent gave evidence to the Tribunal that he had let the property out as individual rooms to different people.”
“There has been a breach. The covenant in the deed states that consent must be in writing which cannot be over-ridden by any verbal consent.”
“The main problem with the Respondent's stance is that he was represented by solicitors in February 2017 and he knew or ought to have known (a) that written permission was required to alter the property (b) that written permission was required to sub-let the property and (c) that he could not divide the property to let as rooms. He was spending some £250,000 on the lease but he says that he did not bother to take advice about and/or properly consider the lease and its terms, particularly as to alterations and subletting which were obviously important to him. The fact that he put a locked door in the partition wall only emphasises his determination to ignore the lease.”
“Some might suggest one particular conclusion i.e. this is evidence that the Respondent is used to dealing with his breaches of lease terms after the event.”
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.