CHI/45/UC/LIS/2022/0036 — service charge decision
In CHI/45/UC/LIS/2022/0036, decided 16 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 9 Walberton Park, The Street, Walberton, Arundel and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 9 Walberton Park, The Street, Walberton, Arundel
Decision date: 16 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hobdens Property Management (Mr Darren Dalton).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2021-22) | £3,214 | £2,892.60 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-22) | £2,581.14 | £2,322.03 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | £60 | £60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | £120 | £120 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges, Demand formally invalid |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondents are liable to pay by way of service charge the sums of £2,892.60 for the period of 25 December 2021 to 24 June 2022”
“£2,322.03 for the period of 29 September 2021 to 24 March 2022”
“The administration charges of £60 dated 19 November 2021, and £120 dated 26 November 2021 are reasonable and payable by the Respondents.”
“The administration charges of £60 dated 19 November 2021, and £120 dated 26 November 2021 are reasonable and payable by the Respondents.”
“The administration charge of £250 for referral to Property Debt Collection Limited is not reasonable and not payable by the Respondents.”
“The Board's decision to increase the percentage contributions for Flats 9, 11, 12 and 15 with a decrease for Flat 16 flew in the face of the professional advice received from Thomas Eggar, solicitors, that the Board should not impose the two per cent shortfall on the leaseholders of the Old House.”
“The Applicant adduced no evidence why the Board had included Flat 9 in the proposal put before it at the meeting on the 14 June 2010. It appeared to the Tribunal that the proposal had come 'out of the blue'.”
“The Board's decision had no basis in the advice given by the Hurdley Atkins which advocated a tiered system of apportionment split between shared services and the specific maintenance requirements of the West Wing and the Old House.”
“The Board did not follow its brief, and failed to consider the apportionment of service charges as a whole.”
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.