CHI/43UB/LSC/2022/0054 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UB/LSC/2022/0054, decided 18 October 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 12 Aspen Square, Weybridge, Surrey KT13 9ZA and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 12 Aspen Square, Weybridge, Surrey KT13 9ZA
Decision date: 18 October 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Grange Management (Southern) Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2022) | £3,788.77 | £2,400 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023) | — | £2,760 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Major works (2022) | — | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect, Works not necessary |
| Administration charges (2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the service charges for the years 2022 and 2023 are unreasonable because they are not 'reasonably incurred'. It is determined that the Applicant should only pay £2,400 for the year January 2022 - 31st December 2022 (i.e. £200 pm)”
“no more than £2,760 (i.e. £230 pm) for the year January 2023 - 31st December 2023”
“it is found that the amount now allocated to the 'bank works' is not reasonable. The problem should have been tackled from the outset, either by taking action against the developer for insufficient ground preparation, or by paying for early remedial works at a lesser cost.”
“An Order is made that the Respondent Management Company cannot recover from the Applicant by way of service charge any of their administration charges in respect of litigation costs of these proceedings.”
“The external redecorations were wrongly delayed, the 'bank problems' have been known for many years, and the reluctance of both GMS and the residents to tackle the issues and budget accordingly has resulted in a heavier financial burden falling upon Ms. Blake.”
“GMS were well aware that the likely expenditure on the bank would be comparable to the substantial expenditure on external decorations, but they chose not to mention it.”
“It is arguable that the lack of information caused Ms. Blake to act to her detriment in purchasing the property, when she might have acted differently if she had been aware of inevitable increases in service charges.”
“There does not seem to have been any consideration of legal action against Barratt for the apparent poor construction of the site (and its landscaped area), despite the consequent losses and costs incurred by GMS.”
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.