CHI/18UC/LSC/2024/0120 — service charge decision
In CHI/18UC/LSC/2024/0120, decided 14 April 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 33 Chichester House, Coates Road, Exeter, Devon and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 33 Chichester House, Coates Road, Exeter, Devon
Decision date: 14 April 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort Residential Property Management (formerly Whitton and Laing).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017-2023) | £6,558.40 | £6,558.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2025) | £19,723.20 | £13,214.54 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £3,889.80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2023) | £555 | £555 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the 'on account' service charges demanded and identified in the Applicant's claim, for the relevant years (1 December 2017 – 30 November 2023) are reasonable and payable by the Respondent.”
“Balancing all of those circumstances I find it appropriate to allow recovery of 67% of the costs claimed… 67% of the costs itemised leaves the sum of £11,012.12, to which VAT must be added £2,202.42 making a total of £13,214.54.”
“these costs should have been itemised and included within the costs schedule, and they have not been, therefore I have made no award.”
“The Claimant is therefore entitled to recover the Court Issue Fee of £455 and fixed costs of £100 in respect of the issue of the proceedings.”
“I consider that it unlikely that more than 30 hours were spent by the Applicant's solicitors on letters after the issue of the claim. The costs in respect of the letters prior to the issue of the claim do not appear to have been included in the schedule, but even if these were, and taking into account that that the letter of claim was sent to two different addresses, the time spent remains, in my view, excessive.”
“I remain unconvinced that it was either necessary or desirable for the Applicant, to employ senior Counsel to act on its behalf in relation to a dispute of this type.”
“Whilst I do not suggest that Counsel has charged an unreasonable amount for a day's attendance at the Hearing, there was nothing complicated about this claim. The value of the claim and the complexity, or rather lack of complexity, does not, in my view, justify the use of Counsel at all and certainly not senior Counsel.”
“the costs are disproportionate to the amount of the unpaid service charges”
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.