CHI/45UB/LSC/2024/0006 — service charge decision
In CHI/45UB/LSC/2024/0006, decided 26 April 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 17 Bonaventure, Sussex Wharf, Shoreham by Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5BH and found largely for the leaseholder: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 17 Bonaventure, Sussex Wharf, Shoreham by Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5BH
Decision date: 26 April 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Firstport Property Services Limited (formerly Chamonix Estates).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2014-2019) | £6,002.74 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2014-2019) | £3,509.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Administration charges (2014-2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal determined that for the period of just over 7 years from almost the end of 2012 to the end of 2019 … the value of the Respondent's entitlement for breach of covenant by the Applicant and the effects of that equalled the whole of the value of the service charges.”
“the clauses relied on by the Applicant … do not go remotely close to forming any basis for a claim for legal costs pursuant to the Lease … there was no evidence of any valid demand.”
“No administration charges are payable.”
“The statement by the managing agent at the residents' association meeting on 10th September 2013 as recorded in the minutes [89] that the recommendations of the surveyor and roofer have been reviewed by Taylor Wimpey and NHBC and not accepted are surprising at best.”
“In the judgment of the Tribunal, the agents- and thereby their principal the Applicant - misrepresented that no works were needed.”
“The latter comment demonstrates a failure to properly consider the report, which makes it abundantly clear that the roof above the Property is separate to other roofs to the Building and does not affect other lessees.”
“The Tribunal unhesitatingly finds the Applicant to be in breach of its covenants under the Lease from the time at which the remedial work ought to have been completed.”
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.