CHI/00ML/LSC/2023/0112 — service charge decision
In CHI/00ML/LSC/2023/0112, decided 19 July 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 26 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 2 and 3, 19 Charles Street, Brighton and reached a mixed result: 23 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 2 and 3, 19 Charles Street, Brighton
Decision date: 19 July 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2020) | £72 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | — | £300 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,080 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £624 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Other charges (2022) | £2,228.46 | £450 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2022) | £942 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £690 | £690 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £1,128 | £602 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £498 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £420 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2022) | £39,294 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £390 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £4,033.10 | £3,000 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £225.51 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2023) | £1,296 | £600 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2023) | £312 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2023) | £2,396 | £800 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2023) | £2,950 | £750 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £156 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £504 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The sum of £2628.28 received by the Respondent in 2018 ought to have been applied to the service charge account and have reduced the sums required to be demanded as service charges”
“disallowing that part of the service costs, and hence 1/5 of that sum against the service charges of each of the 2nd to 5th Applicants, being £70.80 each”
“The Tribunal disallowed the item of £72.00 in full insofar as applicable as against the 2nd to 5th Respondents, so the amount of £14.40 each.”
“The Tribunal allowed this service charge in full.”
“The Tribunal accepted that it was reasonable for the Respondent to have undertaken a risk assessment and allowed the £300.00. However... the Tribunal therefore disallowed £722.70 of this item, so £144.54 per Applicant.”
“The Tribunal disallowed this item in the whole sum of £1080.00, so £216.00 per Applicant.”
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.