CHI/43UH/LSC/2020/0116 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UH/LSC/2020/0116, decided 8 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 5 Oakhall Drive, Sunbury on Thames, Middlesex TW16 7LD and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 5 Oakhall Drive, Sunbury on Thames, Middlesex TW16 7LD
Decision date: 8 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Sandrove Brahms.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018/2019) | £916.20 | £351.98 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2019/2020) | £1,187.52 | £495.32 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2020/2021) | £1,268.12 | £620 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“For the year 2018/2019: £314.35 plus terrorism £37.63 = £351.98 for the Block of Four Maisonettes (i.e. £88.00 per maisonette (rounded)).”
“For the year 2019/2020: £455.81 plus terrorism £39.51 = 495.32 for the Block of Four Maisonettes (i.e. £123.83 per maisonette).”
“For the year 2020/2021 the Budget...is estimated to be no more than an increase of 25.00% on the 2019/2020 figure i.e. £495.32 plus 25.00% = 619.15 say £620.00 for the Block of Four maisonettes”
“The Tribunal found the Respondent's failure to engage with the proceedings to be highly unsatisfactory and certainly in contravention of its obligations under the Code Part 4.1 'You should manage the property in an open and transparent basis'.”
“The Respondent has comprehensively failed to justify the premiums charged (and to be charged for 2020/2021) and appears when challenged to simply make a reduction without either trying to justify the original premium or explain the reduction, in the hope, presumably, that the Applicant will be appeased and not pursue the matter further.”
“Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that an Agent can only act on the Landlord's instructions, it should ask itself whether or not it is appropriate to take on management of property where it is unable to comply with the Law or the Code.”
“The Tribunal attempted to analyse the information provided by the Applicant (including such information provided by the Respondent contained therein) but was severely hampered by the Respondents failure to provide relevant detail and lack of clarity as to which year the quotes provided by the Applicant covered.”
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.