CHI/29UQ/LIS/2020/0005 — service charge decision
In CHI/29UQ/LIS/2020/0005, decided 9 December 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 54a Woodbury Park Road, Tunbridge Wells and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 54a Woodbury Park Road, Tunbridge Wells
Decision date: 9 December 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Engel Jacobs (Stuart Kent).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2018) | £1,943.34 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2018) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Buildings insurance (2018-2019) | £345.42 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £96 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2019) | £782.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Administration charges (2019) | £150 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal has no evidence that the specific requirement in the Lease for notification of the amount expected to be expended for all, or any, of the four elements, was complied with.”
“The Tribunal finds that for 2018, and given how fundamental the above matters were, the reasonable management fees for the level of service provided were £600.00 plus VAT and the so the reasonable sum which would be payable by the Respondent is £180.00”
“The insurance premium invoice dated 29th November 2018 therefore demands a payment not due at that date.”
“The Tribunal does not consider the 2018 service charge to the extent that it relates to the Respondent's 25% contribution to the 2018 contractor's fees.”
“There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant notified the Respondent as to the expenditure anticipated that the on-account demand was a payment towards.”
“The Tribunal cannot accept the reasonable response to that was to instruct solicitors to issue proceedings and for the agents to prepare a file for that purpose.”
“The Tribunal was disappointed with the evidence of Mr Kent to the extent that he was, most notably, adamant that the approach to the bay window had been entirely proper, which the Tribunal very firmly disagrees with, as set out below.”
“He was unable to accept any failing and resolutely sought to defend that which the Tribunal finds indefensible.”
“the Tribunal finds the efforts to force the Respondent to accept liability for something not his responsibility, going even as far as to scupper a sale, and which the agent had not properly investigated, to be quite shocking behaviour.”
“The Tribunal wholly rejects the efforts of Ms Lyne and Mr Kent to suggest it to be anything like professional.”
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.