CHI/43UD/LSC/2022/0029 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UD/LSC/2022/0029, decided 20 October 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 12 Eastcroft Court, 14 Albury Road, Guildford and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 12 Eastcroft Court, 14 Albury Road, Guildford
Decision date: 20 October 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Clarke Gammon Estates.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019-2021) | £2,856 | £2,856 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2013-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2013-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2013-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-2021) | £175 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-2021) | £350 | £350 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2013-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | — | £226.67 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the Applicant is liable to pay the interim charges for the period April 2019 to 24 December 2020 in the sum of £2,856 which represented the total sum demanded in the seven quarterly demands issued by the Respondent.”
“The Tribunal determines that the costs incurred by the Respondent in legal action against the Applicant for breach of covenant are not recoverable under the lease through the service charge.”
“The Tribunal is not convinced on the evidence that the Respondent has misapplied funds allocated to reserves.”
“The Applicant has adduced no evidence challenging the reasonableness of the charges for management services. The Tribunal is satisfied that the costs of the managing agent are reasonable and payable by the Applicant.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the costs of insurance incurred by the Respondent in meeting its insuring obligations under clause 7(c) formed part of Total Expenditure and can be demanded as part of the Interim Charge.”
“The Tribunal decides that there was no requirement on the Respondent to consult leaseholders on the arrangements for gardening services, and that the costs for those services were reasonable and payable by the Applicant.”
“The Tribunal informed the parties that it was not a forum for procedural crossfire between the parties nor did it have limitless resources to devote case management officers and procedural judges to one case.”
“The Tribunal is potentially at fault in allowing this to happen but it reached the stage where neither party was taking heed of the Tribunal's case management directions.”
“The Respondent should have been alive to the potential conflicts of interest when commissioning a report from Mr Sharman, and in that respect the costs incurred on Mr Sharman's report were unreasonable.”
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.