CHI/00MR/LSC/2020/0114 — service charge decision
In CHI/00MR/LSC/2020/0114, decided 27 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 22 The Vulcan, Gunwharf Quays, Portsmouth and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 22 The Vulcan, Gunwharf Quays, Portsmouth
Decision date: 27 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Dack (previously Encore).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2019/2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019/2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018/2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018/2019) | £1,302 | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2019/2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018/2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019/2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“In our judgment the replacement of the fence was a repair… repair does not have to be like for like and replacement, as happened here, can and is a repair.”
“Whilst originally there was no gate again we are satisfied that on an estate of this type the erection of a gate at part of the boundary can be a repair.”
“we accept that all such expenditure was reasonable. The costs charged are in line with those we would expect from solicitors experienced in such matters”
“We do not however accept it is reasonable for the Respondent to refund the costs paid by Mr Jenkins to Churchers Solicitors… This was his prerogative, and it is not something that should now be recovered as a service charge item.”
“We determine the amounts spent are reasonable… it was reasonable for them to incur the legal costs they have done in assessing the claim against the former managing agents.”
“We find it was reasonable for the company to take advice on these matters… We find that the amounts claimed are reasonable.”
“We do however comment that we do not accept Dr Bland's comments that the development is akin to a retirement community. The fact currently many residents fall into that bracket is irrelevant. There is no stipulation or requirement for properties to be occupied by people of any particular age, the development is a substantial residential development that can have people of all ages and this Tribunal would suggest the Respondent should be careful not to favour any group.”
“it was noteworthy that solicitors continued to be involved even after it seems a decision had been made not to take any action at that time. Whilst we can see the logic of engaging with the local authority who it seems are assisting the persons concerned it is concerning that the solicitors continued to be involved in record keeping and the like.”
“We would certainly not expect to see over this period of time, even for a substantial development, legal costs of in the order of £70,000 which it was not believed would be recovered in some ongoing litigation. That is however the case here. This is unusual but having heard oral evidence and looking at all the evidence on balance we find the costs are reasonable.”
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.