CHI/29UN/LSC/2021/0039 — service charge decision
In CHI/29UN/LSC/2021/0039, decided 22 June 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Loft Void Flats 1 & 2, 63-65 King Street, Ramsgate CT11 8NX and found largely for the leaseholder: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Loft Void Flats 1 & 2, 63-65 King Street, Ramsgate CT11 8NX
Decision date: 22 June 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Cockett Henderson.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016/17) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2017/18) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2018/19) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Buildings insurance (2016/17–2019/20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Applicants failed to comply with the requirements of the lease when making the service charge demands, because the demands were not for sums certified in advance as being a reasonable estimate.”
“the Applicants failed to comply with the requirements of the lease when making the service charge demands, because the demands were not for sums certified in advance as being a reasonable estimate.”
“the Applicants failed to comply with the requirements of the lease when making the service charge demands, because the demands were not for sums certified in advance as being a reasonable estimate.”
“since the only demands made have been on account, no sums were payable when the claims were issued, and that remains the position now.”
“expenditure on insurance is, inexplicably, missing from three of the budgets … our finding also applies to them.”
“the budgets are entirely unauthenticated. They are on plain unheaded sheets of paper; anyone could have prepared them. There is no reference to them in any of the demands sent by the managing agents. Furthermore, they are undated.”
“The Applicants were put on notice even before proceedings were issued, that certification was an issue, and had every opportunity to provide evidence of what was done. It would have been a simple matter, if the evidence exists, to produce copies of the letters allegedly sent by the managing agents, and/or to obtain a witness statement from someone responsible for the budget preparation at the managing agents. No such evidence has been adduced.”
“The 'certificate of income and expenditure' appears in reality to be little more than a cash ledger. In none of the years is the true service charge income (whether received or not) shown. In one year insurance appears have been omitted from the expenditure. In 2017/18 there is an 'income' sum of £13,957.99 which appears out of nowhere.”
“It was wholly unnecessary and unreasonable to file two claims, one in respect of each flat. The claims involved the same parties, and were identical save as to the flat number.”
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.