Decision summary

CHI/21UD/LSC/2020/0061 — service charge decision

In CHI/21UD/LSC/2020/0061, decided 19 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 21 disputed service charge items at Flats at Southview Court, Old London Road, Hastings, East Sussex and reached a mixed result: 17 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flats at Southview Court, Old London Road, Hastings, East Sussex
Decision date: 19 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: SE Estates and Agency Management Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Buildings insurance (2015-16)£8,717.09£8,717.09Allowed in full
Administration charges (2015-16)£4,225.89ReducedNot payable under the lease, Other grounds
Buildings insurance (2016-17)£4,462.64Allowed in full
Administration charges (2016-17)£2,466.33ReducedNot payable under the lease, Other grounds
Gardening & grounds (2016-17)£6,300ReducedPoor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Repairs & maintenance (2016-17)£10,364.47ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Poor standard of work
Legal & professional costs (2016-17)£1,980£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Buildings insurance (2017-18)£16,338.04Allowed in full
Administration charges (2017-18)£3,481.61ReducedNot payable under the lease, Other grounds
Gardening & grounds (2017-18)£6,300ReducedPoor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Repairs & maintenance (2017-18)£7,257.81ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Poor standard of work
Other charges (2017-18)£1,400£950ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Management fees (2017-18)£3,530£1,000ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered
Legal & professional costs (2017-18)£2,286£1,386ReducedLandlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2017-18)£247.02£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Buildings insurance (2018-19)£12,500Allowed in full
Administration charges (2018-19)£4,233.95ReducedNot payable under the lease, Other grounds
Gardening & grounds (2018-19)£6,300ReducedPoor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Repairs & maintenance (2018-19)£16,527.50ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Legal & professional costs (2018-19)£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Management fees (2018-19)£3,530£1,000ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered

Section 20C order: granted.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The Respondent's policy is with a reputable insurer and covers an acceptable range of risks and had been assessed in relation to a recent re-valuation of the property. The Tribunal therefore finds that this sum is reasonable and allowed in full.”
On buildings insurance
“the Respondent has calculated his percentage on a total sum which includes £2,379.40 attributable to ground rents… the Respondent has charged the fee at 12.5% plus VAT whereas the lease only permits a maximum of 10%”
On administration charges
“Similar arguments apply to subsequent years which are also allowed in full.”
On buildings insurance
“Similar arguments and deductions apply to subsequent years as shown on the attached schedule.”
On administration charges
“the appalling proliferation of weeds, rubbish, well established saplings growing in drains, lamp standards lying on the ground etc shown in these photographs demonstrate that maintenance of the grounds must have been of a very poor quality for a number of years. On that basis it reduces the sum allowed to £6,300”
On gardening & grounds
“the Tribunal allow only 50% of the sum claimed (£10,364.47) in respect of repairs for this year”
On repairs & maintenance
“The addition of a surcharge would be a wholly unacceptable practice which should be ceased forthwith.”
Of Respondent
“Not only is this practice unacceptable, the addition of the ground rents to the service charge has the effect of inflating the amount of the service charge and thus also of the administration charge made by the Respondent”
Of Respondent
“His reluctance to provide information to the Applicants whether requested by them or ordered by the Tribunal has both complicated this case and extended the time needed to deal with it.”
Of Respondent
“It is evident from the evidence produced by the Respondent that bookkeeping was not his forte”
Of Respondent

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.