CHI/45UC/LIS/2020/0011 — service charge decision
In CHI/45UC/LIS/2020/0011, decided 13 July 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Flat 6a Pier Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 6a Pier Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex
Decision date: 13 July 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016-17) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2017-18) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2016-17) | £465.08 | £465.08 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-18) | £474.64 | £474.64 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £758.13 | £758.13 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2016-17) | £238.19 | £238.19 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2017-18) | £233.71 | £233.71 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2018-19) | £222.83 | £222.83 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2016-17) | £1,080 | £1,080 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017-18) | £1,120 | £1,120 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018-19) | £1,260 | £1,260 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“No submissions have been made by the Applicants, even in response to the Respondents' objection to these costs on the basis that the Decision of 18 March 2020 (paragraph 27) found that they were not payable under the lease.”
“No submissions have been made by the Applicants, even in response to the Respondents' objection to these costs on the basis that the Decision of 18 March 2020 (paragraph 27) found that they were not payable under the lease.”
“The Tribunal heard evidence from the managing agents that weekly tests were the norm in the many properties they managed, and decided that the cost was reasonably incurred.”
“The Tribunal heard evidence from the managing agents that weekly tests were the norm in the many properties they managed, and decided that the cost was reasonably incurred.”
“The Tribunal heard evidence from the managing agents that weekly tests were the norm in the many properties they managed, and decided that the cost was reasonably incurred.”
“There is no requirement that a landlord must shop around for the lowest price, and the fact that there may be cheaper options does not mean that the existing charges are unreasonably incurred.”
“The Tribunal's determination has taken place against the background of a county court claim that was misconceived and is to be dismissed, there being no monies actually due from the Respondents when the claim was issued.”
“Had the service charges been apportioned correctly from the outset it is entirely possible that no proceedings would have been necessary, the sums in dispute being very low.”
“No submissions have been made by the Applicants, even in response to the Respondents' objection to these costs on the basis that the Decision of 18 March 2020 (paragraph 27) found that they were not payable under the lease.”
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.