CHI/21UD/LSC/2023/0085 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UD/LSC/2023/0085, decided 8 February 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 25 disputed service charge items at 213 Priory Road, Hastings and reached a mixed result: 23 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 213 Priory Road, Hastings
Decision date: 8 February 2024
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020-2021) | £932 | £882 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2020-2021) | £50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Cleaning (2020-2021) | £360 | £260 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020-2021) | £930 | £450 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020-2021) | £558 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2020-2021) | £252 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Management fees (2020-2021) | £576 | £350 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | £1,122.04 | £1,072.04 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Cleaning (2021-2022) | £714 | £260 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £252 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Major works (2021-2022) | £2,950 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Poor standard of work, Works not necessary |
| Management fees (2021-2022) | £580.80 | £200 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Buildings insurance (2022-2023) | £1,283.04 | £1,233.04 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Cleaning (2022-2023) | £486 | £260 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022-2023) | £500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £354 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2022-2023) | £465 | £200 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2022-2023) | £588 | £200 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Buildings insurance (2023-2024) | £1,347.19 | £1,297.19 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Cleaning (2023-2024) | £550 | £260 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £200 | £200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-2024) | £592.80 | £592.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,652 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2023) | £991.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The premium is £882, which is allowed. An additional cost of £548.77 has been made. But this was the previous years premium ... it is not allowed in this year. ... £50 has been added for brokers fees. This is in fact the managing agents fees for placing the insurance. There is no provision for brokers fees in the Lease”
“£50 has been added for brokers fees. This is in fact the managing agents fees for placing the insurance. There is no provision for brokers fees in the Lease, let alone for the managing agents to make such a surplus charge.”
“the Tribunal agrees that the sums are excessive for the other reasons given by the Applicant: i.e. only a few windows, one gutter, excessive travel for contractors and the comparable quote. It considers that windows should be cleaned twice a year ... and so allows £260 for both these headings.”
“The sum claimed is large for a modest maisonette and involved surveyors travelling from Manchester, which must have increased the cost of the assessment. In the Tribunal's view a figure of £450 is reasonable and that sum is payable.”
“The Tribunal is left with the impression that whatever was produced was of limited if any value. The Tribunal does not consider that this sum was reasonably incurred, or that in fact the report provided was of a reasonable standard. Therefore no sum is allowed.”
“The previous determination queried the sum in relation to such a small property and given the limited obligations on the Respondent (there being no internal common parts). It also considered that no future costs should be incurred. This Tribunal follows and agrees with that sentiment and disallows this sum for this year.”
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.