CHI/00ML/LSC/2020/0041 — service charge decision
In CHI/00ML/LSC/2020/0041, decided 25 January 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 55 Pullman Haul, 39 New England Street, Brighton, East Sussex and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 55 Pullman Haul, 39 New England Street, Brighton, East Sussex
Decision date: 25 January 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Stiles Harold Williams LLP (SHW).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2017-2018) | £1,521.01 | £1,521.01 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2017-2018) | £1,354.32 | £1,354.32 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2018-2019) | £617.61 | £617.61 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018-2019) | £1,054.40 | £1,054.40 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the payment identified as 'PMA – Payment to Managing Agent - £1,521.01' refers to the payment for estate services payable by all residents.”
“The payment identified as 'PMH – Payments to MA's Homeowners - £1,354.32' is actually the payment for other services made only by leasehold owners of each block, such as the Applicants.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied that the water charges in 2018-2019 were properly incurred and charged.”
“The Tribunal does not have evidence sufficient to establish that it was unreasonable for SHW or Moat to budget for these imminent decorative and electrical repair costs which SHW considered to be necessary at the time.”
“It is unclear why residents were not informed of these changed circumstances earlier than some 18 months later when they received from Moat their final service charge statement and balancing charge for the years in question. This could have been avoided had SHW and Moat co-ordinated their budget preparation and issue dates.”
“it is regrettable, as Moat now acknowledges, that the final service charge statement for 2018-19 lacked transparency and led to understandable confusion on the part of the Applicants (and initially the Tribunal).”
“There is no evidence that such a maintenance plan exists at One Brighton and much to suggest that maintenance, including items of major expenditure, is carried out on an ad hoc basis.”
“lamentable though it is that a sufficient reserve fund for the same had not been hitherto accumulated by SHW”
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.