CHI/19UD/LSC/2020/0077 — service charge decision
In CHI/19UD/LSC/2020/0077, decided 3 December 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 62-80 Erica Drive, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, Dorset BH21 3TQ and found largely for the leaseholder: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 62-80 Erica Drive, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, Dorset BH21 3TQ
Decision date: 3 December 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Urbanpoint Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2014/15) | £4,496.44 | £1,373.49 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2015/16) | £4,735.20 | £1,446.42 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2016/17) | £5,066.46 | £1,547.61 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2017/18) | £5,354.01 | £1,635.45 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2018/19) | £5,625.26 | £1,718.30 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2019/20) | £5,896.50 | £1,801.16 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2020/21) | £5,518.96 | £1,679.87 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Management fees | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds that the charges made by the Respondent for the Applicant to pay in respect of buildings' insurance were not reasonably incurred.”
“The NIG premiums have been much higher than the Ageas figure for the whole of the period since 2014/15. It is therefore right, that those charges too must have been unreasonably incurred.”
“The NIG premiums have been much higher than the Ageas figure for the whole of the period since 2014/15. It is therefore right, that those charges too must have been unreasonably incurred.”
“The NIG premiums have been much higher than the Ageas figure for the whole of the period since 2014/15. It is therefore right, that those charges too must have been unreasonably incurred.”
“The NIG premiums have been much higher than the Ageas figure for the whole of the period since 2014/15. It is therefore right, that those charges too must have been unreasonably incurred.”
“The NIG premiums have been much higher than the Ageas figure for the whole of the period since 2014/15. It is therefore right, that those charges too must have been unreasonably incurred.”
“the landlord says through Mr Luke in his statement of case that the brokers did not undertake any formal survey of the market but from their informal approaches they ascertained that other insurers were not interested in covering such a large and diverse portfolio as the Respondent's particularly in view of its claims record. This indicates two things: first, that there was no forensic investigation of the market and, secondly, what investigation there was revealed that the market for other insurers to cover this particular portfolio was practically, if not wholly, non-existent due to the nature of the portfolio. Thus, by the Respondent choosing to insure by way of a block policy, the existing insurers, NIG, could almost name their price.”
“Notwithstanding this stated intention his statement does not refer to the first of these three aims.”
“the Respondent may be banking on other lessees being unaware of their right to challenge the charges or are not prepared for whatever reason to challenge them.”
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.