CHI/24UJ/LSC/2023/0019 — service charge decision
In CHI/24UJ/LSC/2023/0019, decided 22 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 6 Shamrock Way, Hythe Marina Village, Hythe, Southampton SO45 6DY and found largely for the leaseholder: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 6 Shamrock Way, Hythe Marina Village, Hythe, Southampton SO45 6DY
Decision date: 22 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Rendall & Rittner Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2019/20) | £437.04 | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2020/21) | £452.34 | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2021/22) | £461.34 | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2022/23) | £475.29 | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019/20) | £625 | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020/21) | £1,250 | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021/22) | £250 | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the respondent has applied the same apportionment for the managing agents' fees as it has for the clause 6.24 apportionment. In effect, it has wrongly introduced 'sub-apportionments' into clause 9, something which is not permissible under the Lease.”
“the respondent has applied the same apportionment for the managing agents' fees as it has for the clause 6.24 apportionment. In effect, it has wrongly introduced 'sub-apportionments' into clause 9, something which is not permissible under the Lease.”
“the respondent has applied the same apportionment for the managing agents' fees as it has for the clause 6.24 apportionment. In effect, it has wrongly introduced 'sub-apportionments' into clause 9, something which is not permissible under the Lease.”
“the respondent has applied the same apportionment for the managing agents' fees as it has for the clause 6.24 apportionment. In effect, it has wrongly introduced 'sub-apportionments' into clause 9, something which is not permissible under the Lease.”
“the apportionment of 50% is not one which is permitted under clause 9 of the Lease. There is no provision for a separate reserve fund for 6 and 7 Shamrock Way.”
“the apportionment of 50% is not one which is permitted under clause 9 of the Lease. There is no provision for a separate reserve fund for 6 and 7 Shamrock Way.”
“Its argument in the statement of case that it has power to do so under clause 6.24 of the Lease is plainly wrong.”
“It may also be that this complicated (and no doubt expensive) exercise produces only a trivial difference to the charges payable by the applicants and the other lessees. But that is not a good reason for ignoring the contractual service charge regime in the Lease.”
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.