CHI/40UB/LBC/2022/0007 — service charge decision
In CHI/40UB/LBC/2022/0007, decided 22 August 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 13 Stony Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1BU and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 13 Stony Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1BU
Decision date: 22 August 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | conceded | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Withdrawn | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Withdrawn | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal considered the disrepair, as identified by Mr. Moulsdale in his report dated 28 June 2022, to constitute a breach of covenant 4(i). The Tribunal therefore finds that a breach of covenant has occurred.”
“the Tribunal is not convinced that the Applicant has proven the wall to be demised to the Respondent and, accordingly, the issue of liability is unresolved.”
“Water ingress and consequential damage were evident to the Tribunal during their inspection… the Tribunal find the Respondent to be in breach of Clause 4(i) of the Lease.”
“The Tribunal determined the disrepair, evident in Mr.Moulsdale's report, to constitute a breach of covenant 4(i). However, such disrepair, with the exception of re-decoration, had been remedied by the day of the hearing.”
“The Tribunal approved the Applicant's withdrawal of the alleged breach of covenant. This is because the relevant decoration covenant… does not extend to the whole of the demised premises or the store later converted into the Garden Flat.”
“the Tribunal concurs with the Respondent that, although an obvious health and safety issue, the Applicant has not proven this to be a breach of covenant under the Lease.”
“The Tribunal questions whether the buildings insurance policy, as per the copy provided, meets the landlord's obligations. The policy describes the premises as "shops with flats above", so the Tribunal is not convinced that it currently extends to include the Garden Flat.”
“Furthermore, the Tribunal has been presented with no evidence to prove that the insurer has been notified of the potentially unauthorised additional residential use, at the property.”
“The Applicant was unable to advise as to when they first became aware that the building had been converted to residential use.”
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.