CHI/29UN/LSC/2020/0093 — service charge decision
In CHI/29UN/LSC/2020/0093, decided 10 September 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 34 disputed service charge items at Arlington House, All Saints Avenue, Margate and reached a mixed result: 17 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Arlington House, All Saints Avenue, Margate
Decision date: 10 September 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Trinity (Estates) Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2018) | £422.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Staffing & concierge (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Staffing & concierge (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2018) | £40,065 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | £1,500 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Management fees (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2018) | £63 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | £258 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“although the caretaker could have used broadband in his office in 2018, he did not do so because it was never physically installed e.g. by setting up a router. On this basis, the cost was, through no fault of the Applicants, completely wasted and cannot be regarded as reasonably incurred.”
“Ottimo Invoice 54780 is challenged on the ground that the caretaker, rather than another Ottimo operative, should have been used for one hour's repainting of a wall... the Tribunal finds the cost of employing another person was unreasonably incurred.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied that the costs billed to the lessees represent only the cost of the caretaker's services to Arlington House... There is no other credible challenge to the monthly Ottimo charges for the caretaker and they are allowed.”
“The Tribunal concludes that all the disputed invoices from United Lifts are for costs that were reasonably incurred. The Applicants have provided no evidence from a lift expert.”
“the Tribunal is not satisfied that it was reasonable to procure a quote from Otis which had to be paid for. The report does not appear to have been utilised in any way by the Respondent... The Tribunal is not satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred and it is disallowed.”
“Libra invoice 27567 – Emergency weekend call-out to investigate leak in Flat 1E. Cost allowed: reasonably incurred as no evidence there was not a genuine problem that required investigation.”
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.