CHI/43UG/LSC/2021/0086 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UG/LSC/2021/0086, decided 21 April 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Old Auction House, 70, 70a and 70b Guildford Street, Chertsey, KT16 9BB and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Old Auction House, 70, 70a and 70b Guildford Street, Chertsey, KT16 9BB
Decision date: 21 April 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | £900 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £1,380 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £690 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £3,775.20 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Utilities (2020) | £1,168.69 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020) | £7,741.20 | £4,828.80 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £7,010.61 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £4,701.44 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020) | £5,304 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2020) | £330 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020) | £1,800 | £600 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Conceded by the Applicant as payable and reasonable.”
“We are satisfied the cost was reasonable. No evidence that works not undertaken to a reasonable standard or that the cost was not reasonable.”
“We are satisfied the cost was reasonable. No evidence that works not undertaken to a reasonable standard or that the cost was not reasonable. Whilst the Applicants referred to other costings we were not satisfied and do not find that evidence was produced which supported that the cost charged was unreasonable.”
“We are satisfied the cost was reasonable. No evidence that works not undertaken to a reasonable standard or that the cost was not reasonable. Mr Gurvits was able to explain his companies process for finding contactors and using the same.”
“We are satisfied the cost was reasonable. No evidence that works not undertaken to a reasonable standard or that the cost was not reasonable. Mr Gurvits was able to explain his companies process for finding contactors and using the same.”
“Save for the sum of £2,912.40 which the Respondent conceded should not be a service charge item we are satisfied the cost was reasonable.”
“We note no invoices have been provided or evidence from the Respondent rebutting the suggestions letters were sent second class.”
“in our judgment the clause relied upon by the Respondent does not allow the recovery of costs given as in our judgment no works have been undertaken in connection with the Building or Services as defined within the lease.”
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.