CHI/21UC/LSC/2020/0040 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UC/LSC/2020/0040, decided 24 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 18 disputed service charge items at 52B, 52C, 54E & 54F Ashford Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 52B, 52C, 54E & 54F Ashford Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex
Decision date: 24 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eastbourne Lettings (Mr Mooney).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2019) | £840 | £600 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2015) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2016) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2015-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2015) | £1,260 | £540 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2016) | £540 | £540 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017) | £720 | £540 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2018) | £720 | £540 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2019) | £720 | £540 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Buildings insurance (2015-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2016) | £8,040 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2019) | £4,750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Respondent has produced no documentary evidence to the Tribunal supporting the additional cleaning charges applied to the service charge account in 2019”
“The Tribunal finds the costs set out in paragraph 36 above reasonable and properly payable as service charge.”
“the Tribunal are satisfied on balance that the charges set out above in paragraph 42 were reasonably incurred”
“On balance the Tribunal was satisfied the charges set out in paragraph 46 above were reasonable and had been reasonably incurred.”
“In view of the history of this dispute, and the difficulties in communication between the parties the Tribunal finds the charges were not unreasonably incurred.”
“the Tribunal finds that the management by Eastbourne Lettings was not of a reasonable standard, and allows £540 (inclusive of VAT) per year only for 2015 to 2019 inclusive.”
“The Tribunal found Mr Mooney's evidence to the Tribunal indicative of a relaxed attitude to the management function.”
“When questioned and asked for clarification of the sums applied to the service charge under the various heads of dispute, the Tribunal found Mr Mooney an unimpressive witness. He was frequently vague or unable to provide a coherent answer or give specific details (save in respect of the management fee structure).”
“no proper and timely investigations were undertaken in respect of issues of disrepair (most particularly in relation to the water ingress to the roof)”
“We also found a remarkable absence of detail provided by either Eastbourne Lettings or the Respondent as to the expenditure charged to the service charge account. There is a complete absence of a breakdown or the repair/renewal line item, and vouchers, invoices or receipts have not been produced to justify expenditure.”
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.