CHI/43UF/LSC/2020/0087 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UF/LSC/2020/0087, decided 1 June 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 14 Harlow Court, Wray Common Road, Reigate RH2 0RJ and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 14 Harlow Court, Wray Common Road, Reigate RH2 0RJ
Decision date: 1 June 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: PMMS Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020/21) | £784.50 | £712.55 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2018/19) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2018/19) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the reasonable amount payable by the Applicant in respect of the March 2020 on account demand should have been £712.55 instead of £784.50.”
“management and legal fees, were not recoverable as service charges under any provision in either the original or new lease. The sums budgeted for management and legal fees in the service charge years 2015/16 – 2018/19 were therefore disallowed.”
“management and legal fees, were not recoverable as service charges under any provision in either the original or new lease. The sums budgeted for management and legal fees in the service charge years 2015/16 – 2018/19 were therefore disallowed.”
“The Respondent did not separate out service charge and other company funds, or reconcile individual lessee accounts, until just after the Tribunal's preliminary decision of 30 November 2020, and has never (so far as the Tribunal is aware) retrospectively adjusted the actual service charge accounts.”
“The application of 16 March 2021, seeking sanctions against the Respondent because its statement of case had been served one minute late, was without doubt unreasonable. It may have been provoked by concern or desperation brought about by the Rule 13 costs application referred to in the Respondent's statement of case (which was, in the Tribunal's view, made prematurely), but it had no merit whatsoever and cannot be regarded as reasonable from an objective standpoint.”
“the Respondent's statement of case (which was, in the Tribunal's view, made prematurely)”
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.