CHI/18UE/LIS/2021/0004 — service charge decision
In CHI/18UE/LIS/2021/0004, decided 29 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Ilfracombe Holiday Park, Marlborough Road, Ilfracombe EX34 8PF and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Ilfracombe Holiday Park, Marlborough Road, Ilfracombe EX34 8PF
Decision date: 29 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Epworth SW Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“we are satisfied that none of the budgeted amounts are properly payable or reasonable.”
“Mr Gubbay could offer no real explanation as to how the costs of the major works had been calculated or how he divided these between individual blocks. He repeatedly referred to his professional experience.”
“We find none of the swimming pool costs are recoverable as a service charge item.”
“The First Respondent suggested various items were improvements such as the fitting of a brand new car parking barrier. We agree that this is an improvement.”
“The lease does not refer to the costs of the running of the Applicant company being recoverable under the lease... we find they are not recoverable or reasonable.”
“In our judgment the management fees and staff costs claimed are far too high. It would be for the Applicant to demonstrate what costs actually relate to management under the lease as distinct from the holiday letting business. We suspect in practice this amount would be a fraction of the total claimed.”
“We find as a matter of fact that generally in presenting the case Mr Gubbay whilst supposedly representing the Applicants in fact presented a case which reflected his own interests including those of the Tuscola companies and Epworth.”
“Mr Gubbay could not advance, in our determination, any proper reason as to his failure to disclose this information which was plainly within his care and control. Mr Gubbay simply referred to his professional experience.”
“In our judgment we find that Mr Gubbay set the budget with no genuine belief that these were the sums required to manage the Property.”
“The evidence and submissions on behalf of the Applicant were far from satisfactory. Mr Gubbay could not properly explain the basis upon which he, via his various entities, had taken over and was running the site and units. Yet he had received significant sums of money from lettings of holiday units many of which must belong to the Respondents.”
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.