CHI/21UD/LSC/2022/0129 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UD/LSC/2022/0129, decided 10 May 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flats at Southview Court, Old London Road, Hastings, East Sussex TN35 5BN and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats at Southview Court, Old London Road, Hastings, East Sussex TN35 5BN
Decision date: 10 May 2023
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
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Administration charges (2020) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Administration charges (2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Administration charges (2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the demands for service, and where relevant, administration charges have been properly demanded under s20B and s21 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.”
“it has failed to respond to the tenants' requests for information and has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to show that the sums demanded were actually expended or were reasonable”
“There is no evidence that any of the invoices issued to the tenants relate to any validated services which have been carried out at the property.”
“The Respondent has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the demands for service, and where relevant, administration charges have been properly demanded”
“The Respondent has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the demands for service, and where relevant, administration charges have been properly demanded”
“an invoice for £120 was sent in December 2022 which purported to relate to an annual fee for an entry phone system which fee should normally form part of the service charge expenses rather than be the subject of a separate bill”
“the Tribunal's remarks in the previous case about the unsatisfactory nature of the Respondent's service charge notices and demands appear to have been ignored.”
“Mr Etherton's 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.”
“Photographs (page 203 et seq) show badly overgrown hedgerows and piles of rubbish in the grounds which the Tribunal was informed belongs to the landlord who appears to use the premises as a personal storage facility.”
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.