CHI/23UC/LSC/2021/0073 — service charge decision
In CHI/23UC/LSC/2021/0073, decided 14 July 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Spring Lake, Station Road, South Cerney, Gloucestershire GL7 5TH and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Spring Lake, Station Road, South Cerney, Gloucestershire GL7 5TH
Decision date: 14 July 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mainstay Group (now part of Firstport plc).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Major works (2014-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Gardening & grounds (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2014-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error, Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2014-2021) | — | — | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We are satisfied it is reasonable for them to adopt an estate wide approach over the Estate to ensure savings are provided to all lakes as a result of the economies of scale this provides.”
“We are satisfied that there are many variables to the works undertaken and overseen by the Heads Groundsman.”
“We cannot accept the Applicants submission that nothing should be paid.”
“We find that the costs have been required due to the activities of the lake leaseholder and that lease allows recovery from that party, not the Applicants.”
“It appears the Applicants have certain unspecified complaints about the contractor employed by the Respondents.”
“We are satisfied that the cost of providing such a service is reasonable and payable.”
“Whilst put forward as an expert it seems clear Mr Atkinson had little if any understanding of his duties to this Tribunal.”
“Mr Fieldsend quite rightly was concerned when his failure to understand even his most basic duty to the Tribunal was raised.”
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.