CHI/43UD/LIS/2022/0002 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UD/LIS/2022/0002, decided 18 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 30 Lindfield Gardens, Guildford, GU1 1TS and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 30 Lindfield Gardens, Guildford, GU1 1TS
Decision date: 18 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Lauren Pfieffer (Managing Agent).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2019-20) | £3,171.14 | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019-20) | £36.46 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £335.65 | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £732 | £732 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2019-20) | £96 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2019-20) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2019-20) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2020) | £60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal pointed out that Clause 2(14) of the Lease only required the Tenant to pay to the Landlord one twenty-fourth part of all monies expended by the Landlord... the Respondent had no liability under the lease to make payments on account.”
“The Applicant acknowledged that there was no authority under the lease for a reserve fund.”
“Respondent is not liable to pay the sum of £3,543.25 in respect of on account service charges demanded on 23 September 2019, 4 October 2019, 19 November 2019 and 10 March 2020.”
“the costs for the major works to the balconies and the service charge for the year ended 28 September 2020 were reasonably incurred and that the Respondent is liable to pay them subject to the issue of a new demand”
“The Tribunal decided that it was not unreasonable for the landlord to replace the door with a new uPVC one and the costs of so doing were in the bounds of reasonableness.”
“The Applicant is not entitled under the lease to recover its administrative or legal costs in connection with the collection of service charge arrears.”
“the Applicant's reliance on procedure when it knows that the substantive issue of liability has no basis is not consistent with the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly.”
“the Applicant should have made the application much earlier in the proceedings particularly as it should have known that it had no authority to demand payments on account”
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.