CHI/29UN/LIS/2020/0059 — service charge decision
In CHI/29UN/LIS/2020/0059, decided 30 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 91 West Cliff Road, Ramsgate and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 91 West Cliff Road, Ramsgate
Decision date: 30 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Chestnut Tree Property Management Ltd..
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2020-21) | £240 | £80 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £750 | £750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2020-21) | £140 | £140 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £750 | £250 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £400 | £100 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £200 | £200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-21) | £1,000 | £500 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“As far as the amount is concerned, the claim is for £240 because, the landlord says at page 39, that the previous owners were charging £20 per month. Their own evidence, however, at page 17, is that they charged £120 per annum i.e. £10 per month. I allow a total of £80 i.e. 8 months @ £10 per month.”
“The only conclusion I can draw is that the figure of £750 was a reasonable estimate of the insurance liability for the year and this will be allowed.”
“As the Applicant says that it is paying some £12 per month, I will leave that figure as it is.”
“This property is small and appears to have been renovated for the purpose of creating the long leases in 2018. Thus, the property would not appear to require much management and in the circumstances mentioned above, I would be prepared to accept the Respondents figure of £250 on page 29.”
“The common parts are very small indeed and with this limited information I would allow £100.”
“I will allow the £200 claimed which would cover such matters as clearing out gutters etc. as there are some trees in the vicinity.”
“Mr. Humberstone does not say how he justifies the figure claimed or what his costs or company's profit elements are.”
“It is odd that the demands for money are not dated and there seems to be no indication that the statutory information is included with the demand (section 21B of the 1985 Act).”
“If the managing agents had complied with the RICS code of practice, they would have made an annual inspection which would show whether there are any foreseeable maintenance issues.”
“Any competent managing agent would provide a plan setting out the life expectancy of such matters as the roof and windows and the likely cost of renewal. This enables a realistic sinking fund to be created. This does not appear to have been done.”
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.