CHI/24UH/LSC/2024/0010 — service charge decision
In CHI/24UH/LSC/2024/0010, decided 21 March 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 34b Aigburth Drive, Sefton Park Liverpool, Merseyside, L17 4JE and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 34b Aigburth Drive, Sefton Park Liverpool, Merseyside, L17 4JE
Decision date: 21 March 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: 34 Aigburth Drive Management Limited (self-managing).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | £836.62 | £836.62 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £686.95 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £497.70 | £497.70 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £750 | £750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2020) | £480 | £480 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2020) | £118.50 | £118.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020) | £228.17 | £228.17 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines under s.27A of the 1985 Act that the respondents are liable to pay the following service charges to the Company: a. 2020 service charges amounting to £836.62, payable on 8 June 2021.”
“the tribunal finds that the Lease simply makes no express provision for the recovery of 'interim' or 'on account' service charges based on estimated expenditure.”
“insurance rent of £497.70, payable on 24 June 2021.”
“the 2020 service charge already reflect the £250 cap imposed by s.20”
“the tribunal accepts Mr Simmonds evidence that the services in the 2020 service charge statement were provided”
“the tribunal accepts Mr Simmonds evidence that the services in the 2020 service charge statement were provided”
“Mr Cochrane had no explanation about why no formal application was made earlier in the proceedings, and counsel eventually conceded he was not saying the court should strike out the counterclaim at this stage.”
“No explanation was given as to why the application was made so late, particularly after the matter had previously been listed for hearing on more than one occasion, and after counsel had been retained in relation to the pleadings as long ago as November 2021.”
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.