CHI/00MS/LSC/2020/0051 — service charge decision
In CHI/00MS/LSC/2020/0051, decided 6 October 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Hawkins Tower & Moresby Tower, Admirals Quay, Ocean Way, Southampton and found largely for the leaseholder: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Hawkins Tower & Moresby Tower, Admirals Quay, Ocean Way, Southampton
Decision date: 6 October 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: RMG.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2020-21) | £390,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary, Other grounds |
| Major works (2020-21) | £86,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary, Other grounds |
| Major works (2020-21) | £44,665 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary, Other grounds |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the sums demanded by the Respondent from lessees on an on-account basis for these works in 2020/21, are not reasonable under Section 19(2).”
“If the fire stopping works are considered by the Respondent to be urgent and involving significant risk, the Tribunal would have expected those works firstly to be the subject of a Section 20ZA application for dispensation, secondly to have been pursued more urgently by means of specification preparation and tendering, and thirdly not to be deferred by the Respondent until 2021/22.”
“the sums demanded by the Respondent from the lessees, towards reserves, on account of glazing & canopy works (£390,000) and fire stopping works (£86,000 for Moresby Tower and £44,665 for Hawkins Tower) in the service charge year 2020/21, are not reasonable or payable.”
“The concerns expressed by Ms Manzi about the risk involved in these works, are inconsistent with the steps subsequently taken by the Respondent and in particular the speed at which those steps have been, and are being, taken.”
“the Respondent has demanded on-account, the full costs of these various works without any allowance or reduction for possibly successful, or partly successful warranty claims or claims against the main contractor, or attempted to adjust them in relation to any potentially cheaper alternative solutions.”
“It appears that the Respondent had applied for dispensation from consultation in or about 2019, but then withdrew its application; no further application for dispensation appears to have been made, notwithstanding the Respondent`s assertion as to the risk associated with these works. There is some inconsistency here if, as Ms Manzi suggested, the risk involved is of such a concern to the Respondent.”
“If the fire stopping works are considered by the Respondent to be urgent and involving significant risk, the Tribunal would have expected those works firstly to be the subject of a Section 20ZA application for dispensation, secondly to have been pursued more urgently by means of specification preparation and tendering, and thirdly not to be deferred by the Respondent until 2021/22.”
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.