CHI/29UN/LSC/2021/0014 — service charge decision
In CHI/29UN/LSC/2021/0014, decided 27 October 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Henley Lawn, 11 Crow Hill, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 1HN and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Henley Lawn, 11 Crow Hill, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 1HN
Decision date: 27 October 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: David Adams Surveyors Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2020) | £15,500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2021) | £15,500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £1,750 | £1,750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £2,350 | £2,350 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2020) | £1,250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2021) | £1,250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £5,000 | £5,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £350 | £350 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £350 | £350 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal has reviewed the correspondence and found no evidence of any consideration being given by the Respondent to the amount of the accumulated reserves and how these should be applied… the major works item for the 2019-20 service charge year is wholly unreasonable and should be excluded from the demand for that year.”
“The major works estimated charge for 2020-21 was a duplication of the estimated charge for the previous year and on that ground alone was wholly unreasonable. It should be excluded from the demand.”
“the Tribunal finds the estimated charges for insurance to recoverable and reasonable. There is no statutory limitation on recoverability. These items stand.”
“the Tribunal finds the estimated charges for insurance to recoverable and reasonable. There is no statutory limitation on recoverability. These items stand.”
“the Tribunal holds that, without recourse to the test of reasonableness, the Respondent has no right to levy a service charge for the maintenance or upkeep of the parking space which is licensed by the Respondent to a third party.”
“the Tribunal holds that, without recourse to the test of reasonableness, the Respondent has no right to levy a service charge for the maintenance or upkeep of the parking space which is licensed by the Respondent to a third party.”
“the Tribunal has reviewed the correspondence and found no evidence of any consideration being given by the Respondent to the amount of the accumulated reserves and how these should be applied in managing the cost of repairing and maintaining the Building. It was said that £20,000 would be used in addition to the £15,500 service charge item but there was no analysis of the amount of the reserves or how the works might be phased.”
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.