CHI/29UH/LSC/2020/0107 — service charge decision
In CHI/29UH/LSC/2020/0107, decided 31 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 20 disputed service charge items at Old School Place, Maidstone, Kent and reached a mixed result: 12 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Old School Place, Maidstone, Kent
Decision date: 31 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hyde Housing Association Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2017-18) | — | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2017-18) | £1,467.34 | £1,467.34 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2017-18) | £231.39 | £231.39 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £952.53 | £952.05 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-18) | £2,187.06 | £2,187.06 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £682.21 | £682.21 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-18) | £1,206.90 | £1,206.90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2018-19) | £1,451.28 | £1,451.28 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2018-19) | £1,203.04 | £903.04 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £2,031.29 | £1,617.93 | Reduced | Duplication of charges |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £451.65 | £412.75 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2019-20) | £1,336.09 | £1,286.39 | Reduced | Duplication of charges |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £3,692.20 | £3,323 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-20) | £5,352.13 | £3,694.63 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-20) | £1,507.02 | £0 | conceded | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £1,622.73 | £1,592.73 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2017-18) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2018-19) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2019-20) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“incorrect charge in relation to estate lighting of £41.86. There were additional arithmetical errors amounting to 3 pence, making a total credit due in the year of £41.89.”
“There is insufficient evidence that the cleaning at the Property was done to such an unreasonable standard to justify a reduction from the charge of £1,467.34”
“the Tribunal determines that the charge of £231.39 is reasonable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied from the evidence, witness statement of Mr. James Worrell, and from the invoices, that the sum of £952.05 was properly and reasonably incurred after due procurement.”
“there is no doubt about the importance of fire safety and there was no evidence that any of the sums had been improperly charged. The Tribunal therefore finds the charges for fire safety are reasonable.”
“the Tribunal finds the amount charged for responsive maintenance was properly incurred and is a reasonable sum.”
“The Tribunal was surprised at, and not impressed by, the Respondent's argument that leaseholders could not expect gardening from a service charge item headed as 'grounds maintenance'.”
“This is just the sort of error that should have been glaringly obvious in an audit but was only picked up because the Applicants brought these proceedings.”
“it does add to the impression of a management system for allocating and checking the correctness of charges made that is not fit for purpose.”
“it is a pity that the effort of the Respondent to explain the position to the Tribunal was not matched by a similar effort to explain to the leaseholders prior to the Application. A refusal to supply an invoice pack may have been legal but was perhaps not sensible leading, as it did, to a long explanation in a 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.