CHI/43UM/LSC/2020/0066 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UM/LSC/2020/0066, decided 16 December 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 6 Maple House, Sycamore Avenue, Woking and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 6 Maple House, Sycamore Avenue, Woking
Decision date: 16 December 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HML Group.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gardening & grounds (2017) | £3,402 | £3,108 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017) | £95 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2017) | £30.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2017) | £1,646.37 | £682.40 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Accepting the Respondent's explanation for the £294 February invoice, that still does not explain the whole difference. Accordingly, the Tribunal reduces the sum charged by the difference (£3,402 - £2,814, -£294 = £294), so that the sum properly chargeable is £3,108.”
“The Applicants pointed out that an invoice was missing and that the sum of £95 should be removed. The Respondent agreed. The Tribunal, accordingly, reduces the head of expenditure by £95 to nil.”
“The Respondent has, however, failed to produce its bank statements so as to show that its explanation is correct. Nor has it provided any explanation for its failure to do so.”
“The Tribunal could see no reason why the Respondent could not present documentation to show the claimed expenditure and, accordingly, reduces the charge to the sum supported by documentation, i.e. £682.40.”
“None of the sums detailed here for the usual reserve contribution, the pump or the door, are out of the ordinary for a property of this nature.”
“The Respondent explained to the Applicants why there was a mismatch... the Tribunal finds no reason to interfere with this element.”
“There has been very little effort on the part of the Respondent to assist the Tribunal, producing only a late and sparse response and no new documentation.”
“The Respondent has, however, failed to produce its bank statements so as to show that its explanation is correct. Nor has it provided any explanation for its failure to do so. Even if there were issues of confidentiality, these could have been easily overcome by redaction.”
“Apart from the immediate costs of the pump and the door, there was no evidence available to the Tribunal to show that any particular items of future expenditure had been identified as of major significance, had been costed and a calculation been made of the sums required proportionately from the tenants to meet those future costs.”
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.