CHI/29UN/LSC/2023/0005 & others — service charge decision
In CHI/29UN/LSC/2023/0005 & others, decided 10 May 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, 13 Paragon, Ramsgate, Kent and found largely for the leaseholder: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2, 13 Paragon, Ramsgate, Kent
Decision date: 10 May 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018-19 to 2021-22) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 21B summary of rights, Demand formally invalid |
| Major works (2018-19 to 2021-22) | £2,107 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement, No Section 20 consultation, No Section 21B summary of rights, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2018-19 to 2021-22) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Ground-rent-adjacent charges (2018-19 to 2021-22) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-19 to 2021-22) | £450 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The service charge demands made by the Applicant were not accompanied by the required summary of tenant's rights and obligations. Accordingly, any service charges demanded by such demands are not payable.”
“The Tribunal accordingly construes the letter as there being a reduction in the Respondent's contribution to the major works as a whole to £250. The £1203 contended for by the Applicant was not then outstanding, even if it had been properly demanded.”
“There is no evidence of a certificate of expenditure from an accountant on behalf of the Applicant and so any service charge greater than £200 is due on the next rent day following that certificate.”
“There is no evidence that any demand for ground rent was made in the prescribed form and so was valid.”
“The solicitor's costs claimed were not suggested to have been previously demanded from the Respondent as service charges or administration charges.”
“The hearing bundle omitted the Claim Form, the Defence and the Order transferring the case to the Tribunal, by way of examples.”
“the Applicant was plainly unaware of the requirement imposed on those seeking to levy service charges. That the Applicant was able to seek any necessary advice and that the requirements imposed on him are no different to those imposed on others in his position goes without saying and the law applies to the Applicant just as it does to others.”
“The breaches of consultation requirements by the Applicant were considered by the Tribunal to be substantial.”
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.