CHI/45UE/LSC/2021/0041 — service charge decision
In CHI/45UE/LSC/2021/0041, decided 18 October 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 16 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 2 & 3, 5 High Street, Crawley, West Sussex and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 2 & 3, 5 High Street, Crawley, West Sussex
Decision date: 18 October 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017-18) | £150 | £70.06 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2017-18) | £150 | £123.21 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £750 | £750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017-18) | £300 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2017-18) | £50 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £175 | £67.59 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2018-19) | £165 | £139.99 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £55 | £55 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018-19) | £403 | £403 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018-19) | £300 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £66 | £66 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019-20) | £144 | £144 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019-20) | £350.58 | £324.77 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £225 | £119.25 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2019-20) | £300 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £34 | £34 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the actual bank charges for normal operation of the account in that period total £70.06 (as opposed to the £150.00 claimed).”
“direct debit payments totalling £135.00 and a credit of £11.79, resulting in a net spend of £123.21.”
“These were determined by the 2018 Tribunal in the sum of £750.00.”
“amended downward to £1050.00, deleting the Applicant's claimed fee for his own management of £300.00”
“deleting the Applicant's claimed fee for his own management of £300.00, and fire extinguisher servicing in the sum of £50.00.”
“as a result of the account becoming overdrawn in June 2018, there were some debit interest charges… The regular charges total £67.59 and that is the sum we find to be payable.”
“The Tribunal was not impressed by the Applicant, to the extent he gave evidence direct to the Tribunal. We have taken into account his limited evidence on the other issues in dispute (see below); he did not appear to understand the rudiments of how to deal with service charges.”
“The evidence presented by the Applicant was unsatisfactory and confusing. Although this should be a very straightforward building to manage, the service charges have not been properly administered in accordance with the lease, and the costs have not been properly reflected in the demands served.”
“In light of the Respondent's contentions the most glaring omission was the Applicant's failure to provide a statement of account showing all debits and credits to the Respondent's service charge account over time, with a running balance. When asked about this, he appeared to have difficulty understanding this concept.”
“The bundle prepared by the Applicant's solicitors did not comply with the requirements of the Directions but was nonetheless utilized. It included a witness statement from each party and a large amount of documentation (much unnecessarily duplicated). The Applicant did not serve a Reply.”
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.