CHI/29UM/LSC/2022/0098 — service charge decision
In CHI/29UM/LSC/2022/0098, decided 15 May 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 7 Jubilee Street, Sittingbourne, Kent and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 7 Jubilee Street, Sittingbourne, Kent
Decision date: 15 May 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Crabtree PM Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2022/2023) | £2,500 | £2,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2022/2023) | £1,000 | £400 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022/2023) | £550 | £550 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022/2023) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022/2023) | £840 | £350 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022/2023) | £3,130 | £1,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
| Management fees (2022/2023) | £2,245 | £2,245 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal considers that the Applicant's proposed budget of £1,000 is unrealistic. With the limited information before it and relying on the general expert knowledge of the Tribunal's two experienced chartered surveyors, the Tribunal determines a realistic sum to be £2,000.00.”
“the Tribunal also fail to find any evidence or justification for the Respondent's figure of £1,000 which appears excessive having regard to the size of the block and the actual cost incurred for 2021/22”
“Allowing for the provision of remedial works, the Tribunal finds the budgeted sum of £550 reasonable. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines a budgeted figure of £550.00.”
“Taking into account the age of the system, the usage by the occupiers of eleven flats and the likely level of call-out charges, the Tribunal determines the budgeted cost of £600.00 to be reasonable.”
“No evidence of the contract either with the utility company or between the broker and the agent were provided by the Respondent, nor did the Respondent submit any evidence of market testing... the Tribunal determines a realistic budgeted sum to be £350.00.”
“the Respondent provides no explanation as to why the budgeted cost increased from an actual expenditure the previous year of £1,226 to a figure in excess of double the following year... the Tribunal determines a reasonable budgeted figure for a low-rise, purpose built block of eleven flats to be £1,500.00.”
“the Tribunal also fail to find any evidence or justification for the Respondent's figure of £1,000 which appears excessive having regard to the size of the block and the actual cost incurred for 2021/22 which, itself, appears unrealistically low.”
“the Respondent provides no explanation as to why the budgeted cost increased from an actual expenditure the previous year of £1,226 to a figure in excess of double the following year. Furthermore, the Respondent states that the actual figure for 2022/2023 was lower than that budgeted but the Respondent fails to provide the Tribunal with such figure.”
“the Tribunal is not condoning the level of service provided and would encourage the Respondent to address the Applicant's concerns in such regard.”
“the figure of £2,500 is 'just an educated guess.'”
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.