CHI/21UD/LBC/2021/0027 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UD/LBC/2021/0027, decided 24 May 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Basement Flat 1A, 39-40 Cornwallis Gardens, Hastings, East Sussex and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Basement Flat 1A, 39-40 Cornwallis Gardens, Hastings, East Sussex
Decision date: 24 May 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Arko Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent has not applied two coats of paint and not whitewashed the flat for over seven years and is therefore in breach of Clause 2. (6) (Lessee Covenant to redecorate).”
“The Tribunal finds that, whilst some works had been carried out, repairs and redecoration were never completed in accordance with the lease, and that this situation has continued for a period of years. The flat has been unoccupied for just under 9 years at the date of the application.”
“Given the length of time since the Standen report and the lack of evidence of action or investigation by the Landlord the Tribunal finds that the covenant has been waived.”
“Clause 13 of the policy would appear not to be engaged here as the flat comprises less than 30 % of the total of the 10 flats.”
“The Tribunal finds that in relation to the connection of the new bathroom waste to the main drain, the Respondent was given authority to undertake the works by the Applicant when the Schedule of Dilapidations was served.”
“The Tribunal finds that the photographs show the flat be f an extremely untidy disorganised building site with materials, domestic items and debris liberally scattered throughout. This has been the condition of the Flat for at least seven years if not longer.”
“The Respondent admits to being in arrears of service charge payments and the given that Section 146 action was taken for non-payment in 2013 there is clearly a history of non-payment. The Respondent has paid no service charges since 2013. This undermines her defence that the Applicant is in breach of the landlord's repairing covenant which is subject to payment of service charges.”
“No evidence has been provided of any action or further investigation by the Applicants following Mr Standens report of alterations.”
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.