CHI/43UC/LSC/2023/0062 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UC/LSC/2023/0062, decided 6 October 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 24 Bluegates, London Road, Ewell, Surrey and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 24 Bluegates, London Road, Ewell, Surrey
Decision date: 6 October 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Diamond Managing Agents Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-23) | £3,509.73 | £3,230.72 | Allowed in full | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2020-23) | £279 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Residential Lease service charges claimed by the Applicant in the proceedings are payable pursuant to the Lease and reasonable with the exception of those related to tree pollarding, and so in the sum of £3230.72.”
“The service charges claimed against the Respondent in respect of the lime trees is therefore disallowed as not payable, being 1/8 of £2232.00, namely £279.00.”
“The Tribunal finds that no service charges were payable in respect of such asserted contractual costs, which fall to be dealt with as costs if claimed as such.”
“The Tribunal considers that the point is a simple enough one and ought to have been identified by the managing agents and then the lawyers and that there was ample time for that to have happened. Indeed, it is a matter that the Applicant or its agents ought to have considered before any work was undertaken.”
“The Court has noted the excessive and not reasonable fee earner grade- grade A in a small claim and someway even from the highest ones of those.”
“The charging rate for that fee earner of some £285 per hour was also excessive and not reasonable, being even some way above the relevant Grade A rate where grade A is appropriate but need not be dwelt on.”
“Counsel's fees are also determined to be much too high. Counsel is 2022 call, so not unduly senior and indeed could have been more senior and entirely reasonable for the case, which is by no means to suggest that anyone more senior than Counsel instructed was required. The fees may be regarded as reasonable in the right case even for someone of such call. However, they are, alone and particularly allowing for VAT, not far off the amount the Applicant has recovered.”
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.