CHI/18UD/LSC/2020/0072 — service charge decision
In CHI/18UD/LSC/2020/0072, decided 21 December 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 49 High Street, Crediton EX17 3JX and found largely for the leaseholder: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 49 High Street, Crediton EX17 3JX
Decision date: 21 December 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2020) | £4,850 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Management fees (2020) | £450 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“In the absence of either consultation or an application for dispensation the only determination I can make is that the sum that may be recovered by way of service charge in respect of the repair works the subject of this application is limited to £250.”
“The costs that the freeholder can charge to the lessee are set out in Part II of the Eighth Schedule all of which relate to the recovery of costs rather than the charging of a fee for work carried out such as the £450 included in the demand which cannot therefore be recovered.”
“The only example of a service charge demand [16] does not include the 'Summary of Rights and Obligations' required by the Service Charges (Summary of Rights and Obligations and Transitional Provision) (England) Regulations 2007 and as such do not become payable until properly demanded.”
“It is clear from both parties' statement that the freeholder has adopted a somewhat relaxed style in his management of the building with only passing regard to the terms of the lease and legislation governing the respective rights and obligations of the parties.”
“Whilst such a style may operate satisfactorily where the consent of the other party has been obtained problems will occur if and when a dispute such as this arises.”
“The Respondent has accepted that he did not carry out the required consultation under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) stating that as the work was urgent he did not consider it to be necessary. Given that to be the case I would have expected an application for dispensation to be made under S.20ZA of the Act but none has been made.”
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.