CHI/43UM/LSC/2021/0104 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UM/LSC/2021/0104, decided 21 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Flat 51 Eastgate, Station Approach, Woking and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 51 Eastgate, Station Approach, Woking
Decision date: 21 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Pinnacle Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018-2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2018-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2018-2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018-2022) | — | £3,704.55 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Management fees (2018-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2018-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018-2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2023+) | — | £200 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Cleaning (2018-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2018-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2018-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2018-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the surveyor's involvement is a condition precedent to the demand for the estimated service charge and not having been so involved, there was no valid demand and the estimated sums are not (at present) payable.”
“The demands (or repayments) of the differential between the estimated and final amounts were in accordance with the terms of the lease and are valid demands (or payments).”
“There was no evidence before the Tribunal that the invoices submitted related to this property, such that the Tribunal finds them not to be payable.”
“the Tribunal believes that the first year's expenditure of £3,704.55 should have been ample to solve the issues and limits recovery for the years in dispute to 2020/2021 to that amount.”
“The Management Fees and Charges demanded in respect of freeholder costs are not payable for 2018 to December 2021 save for insurance for the building and its common parts.”
“Insurance has been paid for the property. The Tribunal accepts the explanation of the Respondent that this has increased dramatically due to the cladding issue. The cost of insurance is payable by the Applicant.”
“so poor was the evidence provided by the Respondent that it could not even 'do its best' in some situations”
“the communication of demands by the Respondent was so poor as to be almost unintelligible to anyone other than (and possibly including) its author.”
“The accounting by both freeholder and Respondent leads the Tribunal to have very grave doubts as to its reliability.”
“Rather oddly and wholly wrongly, the leaseholders have no way of knowing what the freeholder's costs are made up of.”
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.