CHI/21UD/LSC/2022/0106 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UD/LSC/2022/0106, decided 19 April 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 18 Bohemia Road (basement, middle ground floor and top floor maisonette), St Leonard's-on-Sea and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 18 Bohemia Road (basement, middle ground floor and top floor maisonette), St Leonard's-on-Sea
Decision date: 19 April 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Austin Rees Management Company (ARM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2021-22) | £100 | £100 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £1,375 | £1,375 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £420 | £420 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £215 | £215 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £750 | £750 | Allowed in full | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £800 | £800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-22) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £240 | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022-23) | £12,480.96 | £12,480.96 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Reasonably included. The Tribunal was satisfied on the evidence that this service is provided and that the charge is reasonable for those services.”
“Reasonably included. The Tribunal was satisfied on the evidence, which included an invoice for the premium, that this service was provided and that the charge is reasonable.”
“Reasonably included; the Tribunal considered the provision of £200 per flat for general repairs was reasonable.”
“Reasonable. The Tribunal accepted Mr Paige's evidence that the costs of surveys were spread over a three year cycle.”
“Reasonable. The Tribunal considered that this fee would be at the lower end of the range of fees for the provision of accounting services.”
“Contrary to the Applicants' case, the Tribunal finds that ARM provided services for which this level of fee is reasonable.”
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.