CHI/21UD/LSC/2020/0059 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UD/LSC/2020/0059, decided 13 November 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Basement Flat, 109 Marina, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Basement Flat, 109 Marina, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex
Decision date: 13 November 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hunt Property Management (formerly Carlton Property Management).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-2018) | — | £1,820.50 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2018-2019) | — | £2,187.22 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2019-2020) | — | £2,727.56 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“we have found that the work undertaken and following this programme was reasonable. Equally we are satisfied that the costs of these works are payable and the Applicant is liable for 12% of the costs all of which have been demanded.”
“We find that the sum of £110,503.15 is a reasonable amount and subject to a valid demand Ms Rosenberg would be liable to pay 12% of the same.”
“doing the best we can we find that the reasonable premiums payable under the lease by the Applicant are the figures Ms Allen sets out in her statement at R[49] being: 2017/2018 £1820.50”
“doing the best we can we find that the reasonable premiums payable under the lease by the Applicant are the figures Ms Allen sets out in her statement at R[49] being: ... 2018/2019 £2187.22”
“doing the best we can we find that the reasonable premiums payable under the lease by the Applicant are the figures Ms Allen sets out in her statement at R[49] being: ... 2019/2020 £2,727.56”
“The Tribunal was surprised to note that the Respondents bundle contained no documents relating to the insurance. Even at the hearing only limited further documents were provided.”
“We note they were not on headed paper and the email address for the sender appeared to be some form of personal account. No copies of the policies or the premium receipts were produced. Further there was no copies of any correspondence indicating that the premium had risen due to the YMCA letting by the Applicant or that the insurer would no longer provide cover.”
“The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has a professional managing agent and was represented throughout these proceedings. It would have expected some documents to be produced.”
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.