CHI/18UB/LSC/2023/0065 — service charge decision
In CHI/18UB/LSC/2023/0065, decided 11 October 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 18 Otter Mill, Tumbling Weir Way, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1GT and 3 Corn Mill, Mill Street, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1AF and reached a mixed result: 10 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 18 Otter Mill, Tumbling Weir Way, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1GT and 3 Corn Mill, Mill Street, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1AF
Decision date: 11 October 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eaton Terry Clark (appointed 1 July 2022).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | — | £304.48 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | — | £187.55 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2022-2023) | — | £513.96 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Poor standard of work, Demand formally invalid |
| Cleaning (2021-2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Poor standard of work, Demand formally invalid |
| Management fees (2021-2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the total sum therefore payable by the 1st Applicant for Insurance Rent during the Service Charge Year 2021 to 2022 is therefore £304.48 and the total sum payable by the 2nd Applicant is £187.55”
“the total sum payable by the 2nd Applicant is £187.55”
“the total Insurance Rent as determined for the 2022-2023 year is £513.96”
“for July 2023 to at least December 2023, there is no Insurance Rent payable by the Applicants as no further policy was taken out during that period of the Service Charge Year.”
“The Tribunal determined that what was described as maintenance and cleaning was required in relation to the effects of the ongoing construction and the 1st Respondent had failed to demonstrate any cost which was unconnected with that.”
“the standard of cleaning and maintenance had been poor, such that even if any did not arise from construction works, the reasonable costs for such would have been modest at best”
“Hence, the Service Cost and Service Charge position generally was something of a mess and thereby wholly unsatisfact0ry.”
“The 1st Respondent accepted that in writing [669], giving the inadequate reason that its bank declined to open a separate account and not explaining why no other bank was approached and an account set up.”
“not only were the accounts not certified but they could not be.”
“it was very difficult - even before this Decision and its impact- for the Applicants or other lessees to work out how much they had paid towards any Service Charges actually due and whether they had overpaid or underpaid in any previous year.”
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.