CHI/21UD/LSC/2021/0043 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UD/LSC/2021/0043, decided 27 October 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 1 Mews Road, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN38 0EA and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 1 Mews Road, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN38 0EA
Decision date: 27 October 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Urbanpoint Property Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2016-17) | £3,057.77 | £3,057.77 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-18) | £2,948.82 | £2,948.82 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018-19) | £3,357.88 | £3,357.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019-20) | £3,490.80 | £3,490.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £4,574.34 | £4,574.34 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £4,600 | £3,025.46 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds the Applicants are liable to contribute to the relevant cost of insurance in the 2016-21 service charge years as set out in paragraph 13 above.”
“The Tribunal finds the Applicants are liable to contribute to the relevant cost of insurance in the 2016-21 service charge years as set out in paragraph 13 above.”
“The Tribunal finds the Applicants are liable to contribute to the relevant cost of insurance in the 2016-21 service charge years as set out in paragraph 13 above.”
“The Tribunal finds the Applicants are liable to contribute to the relevant cost of insurance in the 2016-21 service charge years as set out in paragraph 13 above.”
“The Tribunal finds the Applicants are liable to contribute to the relevant cost of insurance in the 2016-21 service charge years as set out in paragraph 13 above.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this assumption unreasonably resulted in a substantially higher interim 2021-21 service charge than would otherwise be the case.”
“Regrettably, the Tribunal did not have the benefit of evidence from an insurance broker to explain the possible effect of any of these considerations on the likely level of premium, or to explain why the NIG premiums rose so significantly in 2020-21.”
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.