CHI/29UG/LSC/2022/0120 — service charge decision
In CHI/29UG/LSC/2022/0120, decided 24 May 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Fountain Walk, Gravesend, Kent and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Fountain Walk, Gravesend, Kent
Decision date: 24 May 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2020) | £10,965.87 | £7,965.87 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Major works (2020) | £11,588.02 | £8,588.02 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Major works (2020) | £10,552.36 | £7,552.36 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal determines that each of the invoices levied by the Respondent on each Applicant is payable save that the amount payable is reduced by £3,000 to account for the breach of covenant by the Respondent. Mr Butler and Mr Watson are therefore liable to pay £7,965.87”
“Miss Hamid, £8,588.02”
“Mrs Cook, £7,552.36”
“This was a surprising assertion given that there had been no mention of these surveys in the Respondent's evidence to date, neither in their disclosure, nor in the two witness statements that had been provided. They had also failed to provide copies to the Applicants or the Tribunal.”
“the Tribunal also took into account the lack of information provided by the Respondent in respect of these works, in particular, the failure to provide all the reports and the failure to set out the fact that the 2017 works were stalled due to other cyclical works.”
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.