CHI/43UK/LIS/2021/0041 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UK/LIS/2021/0041, decided 30 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Vorberry Place, 125 Godstone Road, Whyteleafe, Surrey CR3 0EH and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Vorberry Place, 125 Godstone Road, Whyteleafe, Surrey CR3 0EH
Decision date: 30 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Parkfords.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | £12,324 | £12,324 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £12,225.33 | £12,225.33 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £13,531.15 | £13,531.15 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £15,445.18 | £15,445.18 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022) | £235,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“£12,324.00 is payable by the Respondent lessees to the Applicant, being the FRC invoice for inspection (£7074.00) and the FRC invoice for the report (£5,250.00).”
“the buildings insurance premiums claimed, being £12,225.33 for 2020 ... are reasonable and payable by the leaseholders to the landlord, via the service charge.”
“the buildings insurance premiums claimed, being £12,225.33 for 2020, £13,531.15 for 2021, and £15,445.18 for 2022, are reasonable and payable by the leaseholders to the landlord, via the service charge.”
“the buildings insurance premiums claimed, being £12,225.33 for 2020, £13,531.15 for 2021, and £15,445.18 for 2022, are reasonable and payable by the leaseholders to the landlord, via the service charge.”
“the Tribunal is not in a position to, and does not determine that the budget service charge estimate of £235,000.00 as claimed in the application, is reasonable and payable.”
“The Tribunal considers that the application has been made somewhat prematurely, given that the precise nature and extent of the works was not entirely clarified as at the date of the application.”
“Moreover, no evidence of such clarification was provided even by the date of the hearing, and it would appear in consequence that no attempt has been made, or indeed has been possible, to obtain a fully and properly costed schedule for the intended works, whatever they may eventually transpire to be.”
“it is unclear how even the figure of £235,000 is achieved, given that the 'rough estimate' of £170,000 for works, £17,000 for supervision and VAT thereon, would appear to amount to only £224,400.”
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.