CHI/00ML/LSC/2022/0033 — service charge decision
In CHI/00ML/LSC/2022/0033, decided 12 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flat 10, 41 Kings Road, Brighton, BN1 1NA and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 10, 41 Kings Road, Brighton, BN1 1NA
Decision date: 12 November 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Jonathan Rolls Property & Estate Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2021) | £330,000 | £264,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Management fees (2021) | £30,056 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2021) | £31,606.23 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £6,494.32 | £6,494.32 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £13,218.28 | £10,574.62 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £2,058 | £1,646.40 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £775 | £775 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £450 | £360 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Doing the best it can, and in the absence of representations on the quantum from the Respondent despite invitation (or from the Applicant) the Tribunal estimates such costs at 20% of the construction costs. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines the reasonable and recoverable Pilbeam costs at £264,000.”
“the Tribunal reduces the supervisory fee payable on the first stage of the project to 6% + VAT and retains the 6% + VAT fee on the second stage of the project to reflect the work undertaken”
“The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's lease makes no provision for recovery of lost rent as a service charge expense.”
“The Tribunal finds such costs to be reasonably incurred, reasonable and, accordingly, payable under the lease.”
“such costs although reasonably incurred are likely to have included an element of duplication which could have been avoided … the Tribunal reduces the costs recoverable under the service charge by 20% to a final figure of £10,574.62.”
“The Tribunal reduces the sum recoverable under the service charge by 20% to reflect the additional costs incurred in extending the scaffolding hire as a result of the project delays.”
“the Tribunal was surprised that neither the structural integrity of the balconies nor the ground conditions were definitively determined prior to the specification of works being issued to tender.”
“The Tribunal was surprised that no apparent attempt was made to establish the ground conditions externally prior to the units becoming vacant.”
“perhaps the Respondent had been poorly advised on the point.”
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.