CHI/24UH/LSC/2020/0036 & others — service charge decision
In CHI/24UH/LSC/2020/0036 & others, decided 24 November 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Ward Court, 65 Seafront, Hayling Island and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Ward Court, 65 Seafront, Hayling Island
Decision date: 24 November 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: KTS.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017-2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2019) | £12,870 | £8,580 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2017-2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2017-2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2017-2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We find that no valid demands which comply with the lease have been served on the Applicants for any of the years in dispute. As a result, no monies can be said to be due and owing from any of the Applicants currently.”
“We find that the sum of £8580 for the managing agents, KTS in the service charge year 2019 was a reasonable fee.”
“We are not satisfied that these costs have been reasonably incurred and are payable… The Respondent adduced no real evidence in support. The sample invoices produced for Mr Ramsey provide no detail for what work he has undertaken.”
“We are not satisfied that costs associated with obtaining planning permission or investigating generally the development options for the site are a service charge item.”
“Given we have found that no valid demands have been issued this means that none of the supposed 'penalty charges' and other administration charges levied against some of the Applicants are payable.”
“it is plain the Respondent has failed to follow the terms of the leases even when matters have been raised with them. Whether the Directors of the Respondent agree with these challenges they are required to comply and follow the lease terms.”
“We are not satisfied that these costs have been reasonably incurred and are payable… The Respondent adduced no real evidence in support. The sample invoices produced for Mr Ramsey provide no detail for what work he has undertaken. We would have expected Mr Ramsey to have produced some form of witness evidence and to have attended the hearing.”
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.