CHI/18UE/LSC/2020/0080 — service charge decision
In CHI/18UE/LSC/2020/0080, decided 4 December 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flats 1 and 2, 19 Oxford Grove, Ilfracombe and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1 and 2, 19 Oxford Grove, Ilfracombe
Decision date: 4 December 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mrs Leech (Regina Leech).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2016-2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights, Section 20B 18-month time limit, Undisclosed insurance commission |
| Cleaning (2016-2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights, Section 20B 18-month time limit, Duplication of charges |
| Major works (2016) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Demand formally invalid |
| Major works (2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Administration charges (2016-2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2016-2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The 2019 demand is not a valid demand for service charges ... It was not accompanied by a summary of rights and obligations. It did not contain details of the Landlord's name and address.”
“all charges for cleaning the passageway and stairs, which relate to costs incurred more than 18 months prior to the date of the demand are not valid.”
“the charge for the building redecoration was not recoverable because there had been no prior consultation with the lessees.”
“the Applicant sought to charge the Respondents for a contribution towards major works in respect of which there had been no prior consultation.”
“The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is not entitled to recover a 5% administration fee.”
“the 2016 demand issued by Mr Fitzgerald's accountant was not a valid demand”
“The Applicant supplied separate bundles in respect of both of his claims to the Tribunal but prepared no statement of truth setting out the detail of each claim.”
“That email was aggressive both in tone and content.”
“The Applicant's statement responding to Miss Beardshall's defence and statement of her case does not address issues raised by her with regard to the absence of information relating to the Buildings insurance, the lack of service charge demands or the absence of any consultation regarding the building maintenance or the allegations regarding the quality of the work.”
“Mr Fitzgerald stated that both of the Respondents failed to pay their ground rent and refused to acknowledge that he was obliged to demand the ground rent payment in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant (Notice of Rent) (England) Regulations 2004 SI 2004 No. 3096.”
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.