CHI/19UG/LIS/2021/0014 — service charge decision
In CHI/19UG/LIS/2021/0014, decided 20 July 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 3, 5, 9 and 10 Gablehurst, Poole Road, Upton, Poole and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 3, 5, 9 and 10 Gablehurst, Poole Road, Upton, Poole
Decision date: 20 July 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Aster Group.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2020-21) | £38,778.37 | £38,778.37 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £5,696 | £5,696 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £5,859.30 | £4,653.40 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Major works (2021-22) | £16,989.64 | £16,989.64 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | — | £2,038.76 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds the sums expended to be reasonable in sum”
“Wessex Water at £5696 plus Pipefix at £38,778.37”
“the Applicant reduced its requested management costs to a figure of 12%”
“the Tribunal finds the sums expended to be reasonable in sum”
“12% of the Pipefix costs for each of the two years, being £4,653.40 and £2,038.76 respectively”
“The Tribunal believes that the communication by the Applicant could have been better and earlier. It was not until the hearing of this application that there was any real clarity as to the sums involved. The stark realisation of the extent of and cost of the works came very late in the day to people, some of whom have been placed in a financial predicament.”
“It is apparent that the landlord knew of the legal requirement to consult, and admitted during the proceedings that it so knew. Ms Towler indicated that it was not the practice of the Applicant to commence Section 20 consultation until the works specification was available, so as to ensure certainty of communication as to what was planned.”
“The Tribunal understands and has sympathy with the Respondents, who were not consulted in the way that they would have been had the Applicant followed the Section 20 statutory consultation procedure and were then presented with the realisation that there would be hefty bills to pay for the works. The Tribunal would encourage the Applicant to introduce a proper system of sinking fund for the long leaseholders so that such surprises are not encountered again and to follow the advice in the Code when doing so.”
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.