CHI/00MS/LIS/2021/0035 — service charge decision
In CHI/00MS/LIS/2021/0035, decided 27 October 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 21 West Central, 20 Portland Street, Southampton and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 21 West Central, 20 Portland Street, Southampton
Decision date: 27 October 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gardening & grounds (2019-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2019-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019-2021) | £5,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £10,532.70 | £10,532.70 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The sum appears commensurate with the work involved. The Tribunal allows these sums in full.”
“On the face of the invoices the costs appeared to have been reasonably incurred and the standard of work reasonable. The Respondent's unparticularised challenge did not persuade the Tribunal that these sums should not be recoverable.”
“The vast majority of this cost was for the maintenance contract with Otis. That was reasonable to incur given that it was advisable to have the lift under such a contract, even if it was out of order for periods of time.”
“The Tribunal did not form an impression that the managing agents had ignored the problems, they had sought to address them. Accordingly, the Tribunal allows these costs in full.”
“the Applicant provided the statement of estimates that had gone out which showed that this figure had been arrived at through a s.20 consultation and after competitive tendering. The Respondent had not commented during the s.20 process. No complaint was raised with the quality of the works. The Tribunal allows this sum in full.”
“in the absence of any comparable cost evidence, there was nothing to suggest that either of these costs was not reasonably incurred and they are therefore allowed in full.”
“the Tribunal found it difficult to understand the specifics of the Respondent's complaint for many of the headings challenged. There was little by way of evidence as to actual failings, the majority of the evidence and submissions made by the Respondent were very generalised in nature.”
“The Tribunal was also left with the impression that these challenges had only been raised because of the dissatisfaction with the Applicant's approach to remedying the leaks from soil waste pipes into the garage area and lift shafts.”
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.