CHI/43UL/LSC/2022/0104 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UL/LSC/2022/0104, decided 30 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at 9 Weirview Place, Godalming, Surrey and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 9 Weirview Place, Godalming, Surrey
Decision date: 30 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Urbanpoint Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £3,600 | £3,600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £402 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £558 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £660 | £660 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £168 | £168 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £2,760 | £2,760 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £240 | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £240 | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £480 | £480 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £78 | £78 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £900 | £900 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £7,506 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £804 | £643.20 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determined that this item was payable and the amount was reasonable.”
“The Tribunal did not consider that the decision to obtain a report in the circumstances was reasonable or that the obtaining of the report was demonstrated to be reasonable such that the cost should be allowed as service charges.”
“The Respondent failed in response to the Applicant's challenge to explain any basis on which the works fell within Service Costs and so was payable by the Applicant as Service Charges.”
“The Tribunal determines these items of cost not to be demonstrated to be payable or reasonable.”
“The Tribunal determined that these items of cost to be payable and the amount reasonable.”
“The Tribunal determined that these items of cost to be payable and the amount reasonable.”
“That is as presented a rather glaringly a failing on behalf of the Respondent to let its agent know about relevant documentation held.”
“The Tribunal was concerned that the approach taken on behalf of the Respondent to the cost and Service Charges was not objectively an appropriate one, lacking logic and failing identifiably to consider whether the items were properly chargeable as Service Charges or not.”
“There has been a rather longer delay in this Decision being produced than the usual and longer than the target date. It is only appropriate to sincerely apologise to the parties for the delay since then and for any frustration and inconvenience arising.”
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.