CHI/00ML/LSC/2023/0012 — service charge decision
In CHI/00ML/LSC/2023/0012, decided 27 July 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 79 Denmark Villas, Hove, BN3 3TH and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 79 Denmark Villas, Hove, BN3 3TH
Decision date: 27 July 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Ellmans.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £490 | £0 | conceded | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £136 | £0 | conceded | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £420 | £0 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £1,140 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2022) | £27,414 | £27,414 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £261 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: partial. Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Applicants' challenge to the 2019 service charges is misconceived, both at a general level and in relation to each of the specific costs mentioned above.”
“the Respondents expressly concede the charge of £490 for the replacement sash window and the £136 for the glass pane”
“the Respondents expressly concede the charge of £490 for the replacement sash window and the £136 for the glass pane”
“we accept the Applicants argument that this is referrable to defective works or at least works that were not carried out to a reasonable standard and should be deducted from the 2019 totals.”
“there is no tenable basis upon which the tribunal can properly refuse the application for dispensation, which is therefore granted”
“no adequate explanation of the extended period of hire has been provided and we find this to be excessive … the scaffold ought to have been struck by the end of April and we accordingly disallow the hire for May and June 2021 (@£150 +VAT pcm).”
“this was despite the fact that as Mrs Whitehead rightly pointed out the Respondents' professional managing agent should at all material times have been fully cognisant of the requirement for dispensation and the need to make an application and the fact that no explanation was even offered by the Respondents for the failure to apply for dispensation at the time its statement of case was filed by its instructed solicitors.”
“unhelpfully the tribunal was provided with two competing bundles.”
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.