CHI/43UF/LSC/2022/0012 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UF/LSC/2022/0012, decided 6 December 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 16 Home Farm Close, Tadworth, Surrey and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 16 Home Farm Close, Tadworth, Surrey
Decision date: 6 December 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HES Estate Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £9,454 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £13,591 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £250.43 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £3,073 | £793 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | £69.30 | £69.30 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021) | £53.58 | £53.58 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £4,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020) | £61.24 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the insurance costs for each year are disallowed; being: For the year end 2019, the cost shown in the service charge accounts was £9,454”
“For the year end 2020, the cost shown in the service charge accounts was £13,591”
“£250.43 has been demanded from the Applicant as the yearly charge for the Insurance Premium in the application for payment dated 13th January 2021. In the accompanying letter from HES, it is said that the total premium is £14,023.88.”
“taking a broad assessment from the correspondence of the time taken, I allow the sum of £500 plus VAT for Ms Taylor's correspondence and time spent on the Management Company. Therefore, for the year end 2019, the sum of £793 is payable for this cost item.”
“the sums demanded on reserve for the years in question are reasonable and payable”
“the sums demanded on reserve for the years in question are reasonable and payable”
“In administering the service charge in that way, the Respondent has failed to comply with the reconciliation provisions contained in the Lease.”
“It may be a matter that they wish to consider remedying under Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987; but they have not done so despite such an application being canvassed in correspondence between the parties.”
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.