CHI/00ML/LSC/2019/0096 — service charge decision
In CHI/00ML/LSC/2019/0096, decided 22 July 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, 43 Grand Parade, Brighton BN2 9QA and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, 43 Grand Parade, Brighton BN2 9QA
Decision date: 22 July 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Powell & Co Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2018-19) | £120 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-19) | £1,224 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £1,778.05 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Major works (2018-19) | £3,685.20 | £3,685.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £1,632.80 | £1,632.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018-19) | £1,050 | £1,050 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018-19) | £1,871.32 | £1,871.32 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2018-19) | £322 | £322 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2018-19) | £118 | £118 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £649.20 | £649.20 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“in respect of Wilder Jayaker & Company we are not satisfied this has been reasonably incurred. This firm are not chartered accountants and we are unclear as to what they did and determine the cost is not reasonable.”
“the costs of the Z Group invoice dated 18th February 2019 is not properly due and payable as part of the year end accounts for June 2019. The tribunal reaches this conclusion on the basis that sums for the earlier years have been included and previously allowed.”
“Mr Powell in his email to the tribunal on 7th May 2020 indicated that an invoice from Townhouse Investments in the sum of £1778.05 for overseeing major works was not a sum he was any longer looking to recover.”
“Considering all of the evidence the tribunal determines that the works have been undertaken and the costs charged are reasonable. The tribunal allows in respect of final invoices for major works a sum £3,685.20.”
“The tribunal determines that the maintenance charges totalling £1632.80 are reasonable.”
“We are satisfied that the fee charged of £1050 for managing a building such as this in central Brighton is at the lower end of those we may see. The tribunal is satisfied this fee is reasonable.”
“Whilst Mrs Alexandrova may look at this decision and consider it a victory her approach to the litigation has at times verged upon the unreasonable. She is now an experienced litigant. In pursuing matters at times her submissions and statements were unnecessarily rude and aggressive in tone towards the Respondent. This approach is far from helpful to either party or the tribunal.”
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.