CHI/24UD/LSC/2021/0085 — service charge decision
In CHI/24UD/LSC/2021/0085, decided 27 May 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 58 Tinning Way, Eastleigh and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 58 Tinning Way, Eastleigh
Decision date: 27 May 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Home Ground.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | £1,540.43 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | £378.73 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | — | £1,619.06 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £3,600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £280.21 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Applicant is required to pay a service charge for 2020/21 of £1540.43 (the estimated sum, a sum already determined by the Tribunal's earlier Decision of 29 April 2021)”
“plus £378.73 (balancing charge)”
“for 2021/2022 a service charge of £1619.06 (the estimated sum)”
“The Respondent also wrongly charged the Applicant for legal costs in the sum of £3,600. This only came to light after the Applicant had started these proceedings”
“For a company charging £280.21 for its management fees in 2020/2021”
“The Tribunal members found the demands made of the Applicant to be very confusing indeed.”
“The Tribunal has detailed above, but does not repeat here, the quite bizarre and incorrect accounting practices operated by the Respondent.”
“She said that this was not as a service charge, but the Applicant could not be expected to know that, accompanied as the demand was by a Summary of a Tenant's Rights and Obligations specifically referring to service charges. She said that the sum was not due, but reflected when it had been accounted for in the accounts; that did not make any sense to the Tribunal because it was very clearly a Payment Request stating a Total Amount Payable. No wonder the Applicant was confused.”
“Whilst not relevant to its consideration of this issue, the Tribunal reflects that the involvement of a solicitor and, particularly, counsel in this matter was not warranted. Whilst there was a need to explore the facts, there were no legal issues of substance involved. The Tribunal could not see why the management company could not have presented the Respondent's case.”
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.