CHI/43UM/LSC/2021/0061 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UM/LSC/2021/0061, decided 18 February 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 13 disputed service charge items at Various flats at Hazel House and Maple House, Sycamore Avenue, Woking and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Various flats at Hazel House and Maple House, Sycamore Avenue, Woking
Decision date: 18 February 2022
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018) | £635.97 | £144 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018) | £69.33 | £69.33 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018) | £345.36 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Management fees (2018) | £288 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £2,113.20 | £378.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Cleaning (2018) | £756 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £828 | £0 | conceded | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2018) | £288 | £288 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2018) | £3,588.62 | £3,588.62 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | £355 | £355 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“There is no evidence that the Tribunal can see to support the levying of any charge (by HML) for company secretarial work... What does appear to be clear is that Shaw Wallace charge £144 inclusive of VAT for preparing the accounts.”
“The Tribunal agrees that the service charge monies should be held in a trust account and that the costs thereof are properly estate costs... there is no evidence available to the Tribunal to suggest they are unreasonable.”
“The Tribunal notes the admission by the Respondent that the sum of £171.36 is not an estate cost... the Tribunal cannot see how, as described, the cost here could be anything other than a cost associated with the hearing and so disallows it.”
“The Management Agreement refers to a number of inspections during a year as part of the Standard Services, not one as suggested by the Respondent. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that this visit was not a visit covered by the Standard Services.”
“The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order the Respondent to compile its accounts in a more accurate manner. The Respondent has explained how it accounted for the monies, which it accepts were incorrectly demanded.”
“The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order the Respondent to compile its accounts in a more accurate manner.”
“The Tribunal has found this all to be very confusing. There is no evidence that the Tribunal can see to support the levying of any charge (by HML) for company secretarial work; this does not appear to form part of the Gordon and Company management agreement with the Respondent, even if that agreement was assigned to it. Nor is there any explanation as to the £70 credit note.”
“The Respondent might also wish to consider evidence supportive of the assignment of the Management Agreement in the event that there are further challenges.”
“The Applicants appear to have been forced before the Tribunal by the Respondent's performance in accounting so late in the day and, in some instances, causing confusion with how it presents its accounts and they have been substantially successful.”
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.