CHI/21UC/LSC/2020/0028 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UC/LSC/2020/0028, decided 7 December 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 7B Baslow Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 7B Baslow Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex
Decision date: 7 December 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Chase Leasehold Management Ltd (Amanda Ritchie).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2017-18) | £314.66 | £162.67 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2017-18) | £732.66 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Legal & professional costs (2017-18) | £180 | £180 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £407.20 | £407.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-18) | £35 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2017-18) | £50 | £50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2017-18) | £9,600 | £9,600 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the Applicant is liable to pay £162.67. That is one third of the five payments made to Andrew Orr for £75 for May to September 2017 plus the invoice for £54 dated September and the invoice for £59 for the visit to the Applicant.”
“Had the Respondent provided the Tribunal with a copy of an invoice relating to the fee it may have determined it was payable. In the absence of any invoice it determines that the Applicant is not liable to pay this amount.”
“Mrs Ritchie accepted that the demand for a contribution was out of time if it was made more than 18 months after the cost was incurred… The Tribunal therefore determines that the Applicant is not liable to contribute towards this service charge.”
“The Tribunal determine that this fee is recoverable as a service charge because it was incurred with the agreement of both parties and therefore the Applicant is liable to contribute £180.”
“The Tribunal determines that the Applicant is obliged to contribute £407.20 towards the amount paid by the Respondent to Clarke Roofing.”
“The parties agreed that this charge should not have been included in the accounts for 2017/2018.”
“The Respondent's bundle suggests that her paperwork is muddled. It included three copies of the same bank statement. No coherent trail in date order of the sums the Respondent had paid and when she, or her agent demanded contributions from the Applicant has been disclosed.”
“Furthermore, it seems likely to the Tribunal that the Respondent has not understood that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is only to determine the Application in relation to the 2017/2018 service charge payments disputed by the Applicant in that service charge year.”
“The Tribunal does not believe that the accounts are an entirely accurate reflection of the service charge expenditure for 2017/2018 for the reasons already recorded in this decision.”
“Andrew Orr should also have invoiced that amount rather than just deducting it from the escrow account.”
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.