CHI/43UD/LSC/2023/0101 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UD/LSC/2023/0101, decided 29 February 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 43 disputed service charge items at 1 Pinewood House, 115 Epsom Road, Guildford, GU1 2LE and gave a decision: 39 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 1 Pinewood House, 115 Epsom Road, Guildford, GU1 2LE
Decision date: 29 February 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2014/15) | £374.24 | £374.24 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015/16) | £927.45 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit, No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Buildings insurance (2016/17) | £1,592.59 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
| Gardening & grounds (2016/17) | £6,528 | £1,250 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2016/17) | £1,200 | £450 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Cleaning (2016/17) | £969 | £484.50 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2016/17) | £1,210.68 | £605.34 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2016/17) | £128.32 | £25 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2016/17) | £600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016/17) | £321 | £160.50 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2016/17) | £2,311.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2017/18) | £1,815.35 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
| Gardening & grounds (2017/18) | £6,180 | £2,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2017/18) | £1,000 | £900 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Cleaning (2017/18) | £573 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2017/18) | £1,924.75 | £1,012.38 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2017/18) | £200.23 | £50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2018/19) | £1,893.91 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
| Gardening & grounds (2018/19) | £8,284.80 | £2,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2018/19) | £1,000 | £900 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Cleaning (2018/19) | £733 | £533 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2018/19) | £473.97 | £50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2019/20) | £2,048.63 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
| Gardening & grounds (2019/20) | £6,276 | £2,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2019/20) | £1,000 | £900 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Cleaning (2019/20) | £660 | £559 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2019/20) | £1,074.25 | £389.18 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2019/20) | £38.71 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2020/21) | £2,272.11 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
| Gardening & grounds (2020/21) | £3,460 | £3,460 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020/21) | £1,000 | £900 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Cleaning (2020/21) | £738 | £704 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2020/21) | £1,044.94 | £657.16 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020/21) | £3,749.33 | £820.20 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2021/22) | £2,555 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
| Gardening & grounds (2021/22) | £2,641 | £2,641 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021/22) | £1,000 | £900 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Utilities (2021/22) | £1,048.15 | £981.69 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2021/22) | £47.62 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022/23) | £3,167.25 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
| Gardening & grounds (2022/23) | £2,164 | £2,164 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022/23) | £1,000 | £900 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Utilities (2022/23) | £632.21 | £149.69 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“This was a proportionate share of the £500.00 fixed sum payable under the term of the contract for her purchase of 1 Pinewood. The Tribunal finds this reasonable and payable.”
“The Tribunal was satisfied that no service charge was payable by Ms Syed for any of the costs incurred between 1/02/2015 and 16/08/2016 by virtue of s20B of the 1985 Act.”
“the Tribunal finds that Mr Webber has not demonstrated the property is insured adequately… Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Mr Webber has not demonstrated that the premiums charged to the service charge account were reasonably incurred. It therefore discounts them by 100%”
“the Tribunal concluded that the gardening costs incurred were excessive and/or works were not to an acceptable standard… a sum of £2,500 was appropriate for each of the years up to and including 2019/20”
“The fee of £1,200 charged for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 was unsupported by invoices. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded it should also be reduced to £900 p.a. for those years.”
“the Tribunal found Mr Webber unable to adequately explain the discrepancy between the amounts claimed and the invoices provided”
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.