CHI/43UD/LBC/2021/0006 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UD/LBC/2021/0006, decided 30 October 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 12 Eastcroft Court, Albury Road, Guildford, Surrey and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 12 Eastcroft Court, Albury Road, Guildford, Surrey
Decision date: 30 October 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Removal of the existing staircase between ground and first floor, infilling and extending of the existing first floor structure and creation of a new staircase. These included the drilling of resin Hilti fixings into the load bearing walls, creating a new hole in the external wall for a boiler flue and filling in the existing hole.”
“Removing the walls to the airing cupboard, new kitchen worktops, cupboards and fittings, replacement of the tank-fed gas boiler with a Combi boiler and fitting a new bathroom vanity unit. Rewiring, including the removal of the consumer unit (fusebox).”
“Decorative works. Installation of engineered wood flooring.”
“the Tribunal finds the cupboard in the hallway is not part of the Demised Premises … it therefore agrees with the Respondents that alterations to the door to the flat and the cupboard in the common parts are not alterations of the 'Demised Premises' or breaches of clause 3(5) of the Lease.”
“Neither is the 'external surface' of the front door to the Flat: see para 1(a) of Sch.1 to the Lease. It therefore agrees with the Respondents that alterations to the door to the flat and the cupboard in the common parts are not alterations of the 'Demised Premises' or breaches of clause 3(5) of the Lease.”
“it is an unsatisfactory feature of this case that none of the statements of case specifically identify the works which were carried out.”
“… wished to make it clear that both parties must cease playing procedural games …”
“Sadly, that warning was not heeded.”
“the Applicant has pursued matters to hearing notwithstanding the significant concessions made, and then failed in the two substantive issues at the hearing and (b) it was wholly unnecessary to incur the costs of the expert attending the hearing in this case.”
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.