CHI/21UD/LSC/2022/0028 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UD/LSC/2022/0028, decided 9 January 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 7, 3-5 The Ridge, Hastings, East Sussex and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 7, 3-5 The Ridge, Hastings, East Sussex
Decision date: 9 January 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2021) | £1,080 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2020) | £3,600 | £100 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Gardening & grounds (2021) | £3,600 | £100 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | £4,000 | £2,400 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021) | £6,927 | £6,927 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We are satisfied that these sums are not payable or reasonable. No explanation has been provided by the Respondent despite the Applicant's case being clear in our judgment as to the challenge of the same.”
“We find having considered all of the evidence that the supply of such services is a Qualifying Long Term Agreement and no consultation has been undertaken. As a result the gardening costs for the years 2020 and 2021 are limited to £100.”
“We find having considered all of the evidence that the supply of such services is a Qualifying Long Term Agreement and no consultation has been undertaken. As a result the gardening costs for the years 2020 and 2021 are limited to £100.”
“We find that the estimated charge for 2022 for gardening should be £2400 only.”
“We find that the charge of £360 in the account for the year ending December 2020 is not reasonable or payable. No explanation has been given and we would have expected one invoice only.”
“We are satisfied that the charge in 2021 of £6,927 falls within the level of what is reasonable for obtaining an EWS1 for a building of this type.”
“We record that the response to these proceedings by the Respondent was very limited and contained little proper explanation of the sums claimed. Certainly the Respondents statement fell below the information we would typically expect to receive in response to such an application.”
“In our judgment the Respondent acting through its agents has been dismissive of the same and has acted to lengthen the proceedings. The procedural history makes this very plain.”
“The Applicant has produced correspondence from her and her solicitors and states the Respondents and their agents have not engaged meaningfully with that correspondence. We find that this has been the case.”
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.