CHI/00MR/LSC/2021/0114 — service charge decision
In CHI/00MR/LSC/2021/0114, decided 13 May 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, Burlington Lodge, 89 Victoria Road South, Southsea and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, Burlington Lodge, 89 Victoria Road South, Southsea
Decision date: 13 May 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019) | £900 | £900 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £900 | £900 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019-2020) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019-2020) | £1,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“I find that the amount recoverable as an interim charge is £900 per annum... the interim service charges for the years 2019 and 2020 are due and payable in the sum of £900 per annum thereby totalling £1800 as claimed by the Applicants.”
“the interim service charges for the years 2019 and 2020 are due and payable in the sum of £900 per annum thereby totalling £1800 as claimed by the Applicants.”
“These are not costs incurred in contemplation of forfeiture as envisaged by clause 3(vi) of the lease. No other basis for recovery of these charges was advanced by the Applicant. With regret I determine that these costs are not recoverable as an administration charge under the lease from the Respondent.”
“I find those sums referred to as 'Balancing Charges' not to be due and payable.”
“I find that this additional sum of £1000 is not due and payable by the Respondent.”
“I am satisfied that the making of payments in this way was unreasonable. I fully accept that in so doing additional time had to be spent by the managing agents beyond that which may reasonably have been expected. Further given the letters sent the Respondent could, and should, have desisted from making payments in this way. I would certainly urge the Respondent to desist from acting in this way in future or it may be his ability to make direct payments to the bank account may be withdrawn by the agents.”
“In respect of the Tribunal decision referred to the Applicant could have produced the same if it was relevant. As an aside it appears to relate to a wholly different class of case and would have no bearing on the issues I had to determine. Further the Applicant could have presented evidence as to an estoppel of convention but it chose not to.”
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.