CHI/43UM/LSC/2023/0027 — service charge decision
In CHI/43UM/LSC/2023/0027, decided 25 August 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 29 disputed service charge items at Flat 8 River Court Sheerwater Woking and reached a mixed result: 13 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 8 River Court Sheerwater Woking
Decision date: 25 August 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £11,250.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £14,560.67 | £14,560.67 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £3,012 | £420 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2021) | £4,500 | £4,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2021) | £3,906 | £3,906 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021) | £4,280.48 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Other grounds |
| Gardening & grounds (2021) | £1,188 | £1,188 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £342 | £342 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £732 | £732 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £480 | £480 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2021) | £12,636 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2021) | £530 | £530 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £548.60 | £548.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £220 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £39.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Other grounds |
| Utilities (2021) | £4,806.96 | £2,134.54 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2021) | £333 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2021) | £468 | £468 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £3,223.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £1,056 | £1,056 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £250 | £250 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £18,481.82 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | £4,200 | £4,200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022) | £12,787.20 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022) | £5,500 | £5,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022) | £750 | £750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022) | £5,000 | £2,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“no insurance premium is payable by the Applicant until his acquisition. It accepts his calculation of the amount due and that he is therefore due an additional credit equal to £56.62.”
“The tribunal does not consider that the lack of provision of the full policy constitutes evidence that insurance was not obtained. No evidence has been provided to challenge the level of the premium payable. It therefore determines that the premium demanded is reasonable and payable.”
“only a fair and reasonable proportion of £420 is recoverable from the Applicant through the service charge in respect of rubbish clearance and waste removal.”
“It was reasonable for the managing agents to acquire further bins. The Applicant has not challenged the cost of these and the tribunal finds that the cost was reasonable.”
“The tribunal finds that the evidence provided does not suggest that the garden maintenance is unsatisfactory and finds the costs to be both payable and reasonable.”
“The tribunal finds that the faults were due to faulty installation by the developer which should have been addressed as a snagging item. The costs are not therefore recoverable from the tenants.”
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.