CHI/19UJ/LSC/2023/0165 — service charge decision
In CHI/19UJ/LSC/2023/0165, decided 7 November 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 22 disputed service charge items at Atlantic House, 1 Ayton Drive, Portland, Dorset and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Atlantic House, 1 Ayton Drive, Portland, Dorset
Decision date: 7 November 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Comer Property Management Ltd (Sinead Lisibach).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2019-2020) | £12,904.32 | £12,904.32 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2020-2021) | £14,194.75 | £14,194.75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2021-2022) | £15,614.23 | £15,614.23 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Lifts | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-2020) | — | £0 | conceded | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2019-2020) | £274.25 | £274.25 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-2021) | £1,134 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2020-2021) | £957.83 | £957.83 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | — | £0 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-2021) | £44,000 | £44,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal therefore determines the levels of caretaker wages demanded are reasonable.”
“The Tribunal therefore determines the levels of caretaker wages demanded are reasonable.”
“The Tribunal therefore determines the levels of caretaker wages demanded are reasonable.”
“Given the absence of a signed contract, the Tribunal disallows the service charge in full associated with the Megadene contract.”
“The Respondents identified the invoices referring to the BT contract at page 331. The Respondent then provided a breakdown of the figures specifically relating to Atlantic House. The Tribunal therefore accepts that these have been reasonably incurred.”
“The Tribunal decides that it is not unreasonable for the service provider to have a standing charge plus a charge which addresses individual disposable items in addition. The Tribunal decides the charges are allowable.”
“The Tribunal notes that there have been occasions where the information provided by the Respondent had been inadequate or unintentionally misleading for example the Megadene contract.”
“the Tribunal finds the onus should be on the managing agent to address misunderstandings or mis communication proactively.”
“It would have been preferable for clarity if the report had been made available before the hearing”
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.