CHI/21UD/LAM/2021/0001 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UD/LAM/2021/0001, decided 16 July 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 27-31 White Rock, Hastings and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 27-31 White Rock, Hastings
Decision date: 16 July 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Cilec Limited t/a Tersons.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | conceded | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges | — | — | conceded | Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | conceded | Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent was in breach of the terms of the Lease in relation to the repair of the roof to the Property and clearing the gutters to the Property after July 2019”
“The Respondent was in breach of paragraphs 8.4 and 9.1 of the Code in relation to a hazard for failing to fix loose carpet to the communal hallway”
“The Respondent was in breach of paragraph 12.2 for failing to provide insurance documents for the Property”
“The Tribunal determined it had not been demonstrated that the insurance cost was excessive creating an unreasonable service charge.”
“The Tribunal did not find a breach in relation to financial matters but did consider there to be a relevant circumstance and of some significance.”
“Although most of his evidence was found by the Tribunal to be correct, there were instances where Mr Godden apparently did not know the answer but rather than saying so came up with answers which were not correct.”
“Mr Frembgen's evidence was not always balanced, lacking an ability to accept any fault on his part in relation to any matters and he was prone to deny receipt of communications which the Tribunal did not entirely accept.”
“Mr Baker's evidence was not compelling insofar as relevant to matters in relation to the making of an appointment of a manager in general.”
“More notably, Mr Godden's evidence in relation to this element was less than satisfactory. He avoided straight answers which he may have perceived as unhelpful to the Respondent until specifically pressed. He had no explanation for failing to provide the insurance documents to Bridgeford and Co.”
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.