CHI/21UG/LSC/2022/0113 AND /0009 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UG/LSC/2022/0113 AND /0009, decided 12 May 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 19 disputed service charge items at 9A and 9B London Road, Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex and reached a mixed result: 17 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 9A and 9B London Road, Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex
Decision date: 12 May 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited (Mr Ronni Gurvits).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £3,427.43 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Works not necessary |
| Other charges (2022) | £719.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022) | £838.14 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2020) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2021) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2018) | £858 | £500 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2020) | £871.20 | £500 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2021) | £882 | £500 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2022) | £889.20 | £500 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £1,585 | £1,585 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018) | £180 | £180 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2022) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2022) | £120 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“£3,427.43 [shown as 'received' on the 25th of March 2022] were not payable because although the contractors had apparently been paid in full, the works had only been partially completed and had not been done to a reasonable standard.”
“the costs of £719.40 and £838.14 in respect of meter cupboard and fire alarm works...were not 'Reasonably incurred' and are therefore not payable.”
“the costs of £719.40 and £838.14 in respect of meter cupboard and fire alarm works...were not 'Reasonably incurred' and are therefore not payable.”
“The charges of £250 in 2019 and of £750 for cleaning of gutters and pipes in 2021/2022 related to costs which were not 'Reasonably incurred', because the work was not done at all at that time.”
“The charges of £250 in 2019 and of £750 for cleaning of gutters and pipes in 2021/2022 related to costs which were not 'Reasonably incurred', because the work was not done at all at that time.”
“The charges of £250 in 2019 and of £750 for cleaning of gutters and pipes in 2021/2022 related to costs which were not 'Reasonably incurred', because the work was not done at all at that time.”
“The Tribunal was very concerned that urgent works still remained outstanding 15 months after the Fire Safety Report, and that none of the items in the detailed assessment – even those highlighted in red as 'Legal Non-Compliances' – had been dealt with. The Respondents simply asserted that the tenants' nominated contractor had failed to carry out the works, but this was not an adequate excuse.”
“No explanation was given for that contractor's 'Paid' Invoice (again dated 09/11/21) [exhibited at Page 120] which referred to repointing the chimneys, replacing 'spalled or crumbling bricks' and ensuring the whole was 'secure and weatherproof' at a cost of £1,950.”
“he has never been there”
“The Respondents complained that the Applicants had not supplied a complete and coherent bundle, but they failed to take account of their own comparatively extensive experience of Tribunal proceedings and did not adduce the evidence themselves in support of their case or volunteer to create the bundle, even though they were better placed to do so.”
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.