CHI/45UC/LSC/2022/0060 — service charge decision
In CHI/45UC/LSC/2022/0060, decided 27 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flat 20 Regis Gate, 12-28 Longford Road, Bognor Regis, West Sussex and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 20 Regis Gate, 12-28 Longford Road, Bognor Regis, West Sussex
Decision date: 27 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2019) | £95 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2020) | £48 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2020) | £36 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2020) | £180 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Lifts (2019) | £607.72 | £607.72 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2020) | £578.20 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Administration charges (2020) | £30 | £30 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020) | £288 | £288 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Applicant could point to no authority under the lease which enabled it to charge for notice of a letting of an assured shorthold tenancy. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had no authority under the lease to make these charges.”
“The Applicant could point to no authority under the lease which enabled it to charge for notice of a letting of an assured shorthold tenancy. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had no authority under the lease to make these charges.”
“The Applicant adduced no evidence of what the charges were for and no evidence of the demands and statement of Tenant's rights and obligations. Given these facts the Tribunal finds that the Respondents were not liable to pay the administration charges of £36 and £180 respectively.”
“The Applicant adduced no evidence of what the charges were for and no evidence of the demands and statement of Tenant's rights and obligations. Given these facts the Tribunal finds that the Respondents were not liable to pay the administration charges of £36 and £180 respectively.”
“Invoice 1570 concerned costs of works to the lift, the Tribunal determined that the costs of £607.72 were reasonable and payable.”
“The Applicant accepted that invoice 1658 dated 24 April 2020 in the sum of £578.20 for works to the second lift was no longer due, and in fact a credit had been given in the Respondents' service charge account for the following year.”
“The Claimant's conduct in connection with last hearing was unacceptable. There was a failure to comply with directions and to respond to the enquiries of the Court. Also the involvement of the freeholder acting separately from the managing agent at the beginning of the dispute caused significant confusion and was the principal reason why the Defendants had withheld payment.”
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.