CHI/00ML/LSC/2022/0118 — service charge decision
In CHI/00ML/LSC/2022/0118, decided 19 May 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Flat 5, 42 Brunswick Place, Hove, East Sussex and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 5, 42 Brunswick Place, Hove, East Sussex
Decision date: 19 May 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Baron Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018) | £300 | £250 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £1,140 | £1,140 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £1,434 | £114.72 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020) | £1,143.60 | £1,143.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,200 | £1,200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | £21,534.38 | £9,398.41 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2019) | £17,187 | £8,069.96 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2020) | £17,187 | £10,124.58 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022) | £480 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023) | £480 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Management fees (2020) | £1,468.54 | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The corresponding entry in the service charge accounts is only £250 so it appears a lower sum was charged... the tribunal finds that a charge at this level is reasonable.”
“The tribunal finds the amount charged to be payable and reasonable, even though there was no consultation.”
“No evidence of a full consultation process has been provided... the management fee referred to in that consultation is substantially less than the amount claimed... This is the amount that should have been charged to the Applicant.”
“The tribunal has already found that health and safety inspections are outside the scope of the management fee and so can be charged in addition to it... the tribunal reaches the same conclusion that these costs are reasonable and payable.”
“The tribunal has already determined that the charges could be made outside the management fee and so there is no double counting with that fee. As before, no evidence has been provided that the amounts charged are unreasonable.”
“The estimated service charges for the three years from 2018 are all well in excess of this and so are unreasonable... 2018 –£9,398.41 (£1,127.81)”
“None of this was credited against future service charge, instead being rolled up into what is clearly viewed by the Respondent as a reserve fund.”
“the impact of any excess would have been reduced if the Respondent had credited the proper surplus against future expenditure, but instead it has compounded the issue by holding onto the excess. Alternatively, it could have mitigated the position by reducing the amount put into the reserve fund each year. As it has done neither, the amount in the reserve fund is now at a level in excess of what is needed.”
“No evidence of posting or receipt has been provided nor copies of the complete invoices.”
“It is noted that this is inconsistent with the comment in the email dated 21st July 2022 from Nazila Blencowe of the Respondent”
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.