CHI/24UP/LSC/2022/0105 — service charge decision
In CHI/24UP/LSC/2022/0105, decided 20 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flats 1-9, St Thomas Church, Southgate Street, Winchester, Hampshire and found largely for the landlord: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1-9, St Thomas Church, Southgate Street, Winchester, Hampshire
Decision date: 20 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Belgarum Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2023+) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Apportionment error |
| Major works (2023+) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Apportionment error |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023+) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Apportionment error |
| Lifts (2023+) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2018-2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Insofar as the Applicant proposes to include any 'Expenditure on Services … in respect of the Building' within the Development Charge, that is simply not permissible under the terms of the Lease because clause 1.14 specifically excludes services provided to 'the Building' from the Development Charge.”
“The Tribunal determines under s.27A(3) of the 1985 Act that any service charges based on the applicant's proposed apportionment scheme would not be payable in future years. The proposed scheme is inconsistent with the terms of the leases of the flats.”
“The real difficulty for the applicant's revised apportionment scheme is the use of five different apportionments within clause 1.13. The Tribunal considers this is simply not permitted under the terms of the Lease.”
“A further similar objection can be made to the suggestion that a different apportionment can be applied to three or seven flats for certain costs. As Mr Dunn observed in relation to the lift costs, that is simply not permissible.”
“the Tribunal indicated it was not in a position to make a determination about the charges payable for 2018-22 service charge years without seeing the demands for payment or evidence of the costs which were incurred in those years.”
“The Tribunal recognises that the result of its decision is that this anomaly will mean there will be a permanent deficit in the scheme of service charges, since in any one year the landlord will only be able to recover 8/9ths of the costs of maintaining the lift. But that is the consequence of a rather unwise decision made by the landlord in 2107.”
“There were no copies of any service charge statements or demands. Neither was there any evidence from the managing agents about how the charges operate at present or how they have operated in the past.”
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.