CHI/00ML/LSC/2023/0151 — service charge decision
In CHI/00ML/LSC/2023/0151, decided 19 July 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 23 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 2 and 3, 19 Charles Street, Brighton and found largely for the leaseholder: 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) | £2,628.28 | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £354 | £0 | 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 (2021) | £722.70 | £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 | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022) | £2,228.46 | £450 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2022) | £942 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £1,128 | £602 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| 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)) |
| 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)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| 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 | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Duplication of charges |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £2,950 | £750 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £156 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £504 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“there was the sum which had not identifiably been expended by the Respondent and which remained unspent by the end of the 2018 service charge year…there was no need to make demands to the extent money was already available, being £525.66 per relevant lessee”
“disallowing that part of the service costs…£354.00…It was unclear why there might have been similar work undertaken on 2 occasions”
“The weight comfortably lay with a lack of window cleaning being carried out and so the charge being for a service not carried out.”
“Tribunal accepted that it was reasonable for the Respondent to have undertaken a risk assessment and allowed the £300.00…disallowed £722.70 of this item”
“There was no evidence before the Tribunal as to why the survey had been commissioned…no report from the survey was available”
“The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the unchallenged and clear evidence of the Applicants that no work had been undertaken.”
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.