CHI/43UL/LSC/2024/0036 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UL/LSC/2024/0036, decided 7 April 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Elmbridge Retirement Village, Essex Drive, Cranleigh, GU6 8TR and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Elmbridge Retirement Village, Essex Drive, Cranleigh, GU6 8TR
Decision date: 7 April 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: R.V. Services Limited (RVS).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £48,850 | £48,840 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2022-2023) | £16,000 | £16,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-2023) | £144,278 | £133,457.15 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024-2025) | £200,000 | £200,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-2025) | £93,347.52 | £93,347.52 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-2025) | £19,401.60 | £19,401.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2024-2025) | £4,060 | £4,060 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2024-2025) | £10,397 | £10,397 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-2025) | £23,261.34 | £23,261.34 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The cost of these works put at £48,840 is payable as service charge within paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Deed of Management. The cost was reasonably incurred in the sense that the works needed to be done urgently and sewage was leaking.”
“The costs incurred for the YQC services were reasonably incurred in view of the need to ensure continuity of management of the Wellbeing centre from an experienced and trusted supplier such as Jade Hill.”
“The Tribunal assesses that a reduction of 7.5% of the management fee charged for the year ended 31 March 2023 is appropriate to reflect the reduced value of the service provided. 92.5% of that sum is £133,457.15.”
“The Applicants have not shown it was unreasonable to charge sums based upon a reserve fund allocation of £200,000 for future expenditure, even though that sum was initially allocated on the basis that it would include interest upon repayments of any loan.”
“The Applicants have not shown that it was unreasonable to charge for this head of costs in advance.”
“The Applicants have not shown that it was unreasonable to charge for this head of cost in advance of the cost being incurred.”
“The initial allocation of these costs, the failure to be open or transparent about the reallocation of these costs was not simply what is described euphemistically as a 'miscommunication'. It reflected poor management of accounting systems and substandard communications to the Applicants.”
“The Respondent's omission to inform the Tribunal that the author of that email was a close family relative of Jade Hill is extremely unfortunate.”
“The accounting and management aspects of the service provided by RVS and the Respondent were below the standard to be expected of a manager exercising reasonable diligence. The nature of the appointment was unclear, the invoices themselves were unclear and from a different company (RCS) and Kelvin Glenn misunderstood and miscommunicated the nature of the services provided.”
“The Respondent's services fell down in their communication about the costs of YQC and basic procurement protocols of obtaining a contract of engagement itemising services provided and invoices which described the services provided.”
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.