CHI/00MR/LSC/2022/0066 — service charge decision
In CHI/00MR/LSC/2022/0066, decided 14 February 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, 58 Waverley Road, Southsea, Hampshire and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, 58 Waverley Road, Southsea, Hampshire
Decision date: 14 February 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Parsons Son & Basley.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019/2020) | £40 | £40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020/2021) | £40 | £40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019/2020) | £252.48 | £258.33 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020/2021) | £334.84 | £334.84 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021/2022) | £375.13 | £375.13 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019/2020) | £258.33 | £258.33 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020/2021) | £258.33 | £258.33 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021/2022) | £258.33 | £258.33 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the accountancy fees are reasonable and have been reasonably incurred”
“the accountancy fees are reasonable and have been reasonably incurred”
“the insurance premiums for the Relevant Years are reasonable and were reasonably incurred by the Respondent”
“the insurance premiums for the Relevant Years are reasonable and were reasonably incurred by the Respondent”
“the insurance premiums for the Relevant Years are reasonable and were reasonably incurred by the Respondent”
“the amount charged in respect of the management is reasonable for the service provided, taking into account the size of the property and the lessor's obligations in the lease”
“Contrary to the statement made on behalf of the Managing Agents, there are no details of either the contract or invoices for these fees in the Bundle.”
“Whilst her statement listed the supporting documents which should have been produced with the statement, some of those documents are omitted from the bundle and presumably were either not attached to the original statement, or not provided by the Respondent.”
“PS&B prepare a budget, which confusingly, is based on anticipated expenditure from 29 September to 28 September which makes it difficult to reconcile the budget with the accounts.”
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.