CHI/45UG/LSC/2021/0037 — service charge decision
In CHI/45UG/LSC/2021/0037, decided 25 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 10 Old Auction House, 70 Guildford Street, Chertsey, KT16 9BB and gave a decision: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 10 Old Auction House, 70 Guildford Street, Chertsey, KT16 9BB
Decision date: 25 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance | £135 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works | £2,912.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Works not necessary |
| Major works | £4,828.80 | £4,828.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Applicant is clearly being asked to contribute to a reserve fund which the lease does not permit. Any unidentified sum on account of service charges is therefore to be excluded from any demand.”
“The kitchen ceiling of flat 8 would appear to be part of that flat and is therefore excluded from the definition of 'retained parts' in the lease, the sum of £135.00 claimed for this work is not subject to a claim for service charges and is to be excluded.”
“The installation of loft insulation…does not come within the definition of a service charge and is not recoverable as such.”
“The provision as to the repairs to the roof excluding the insulation can be included in the service charge because it seems to be agreed that the repairs were necessary.”
“The tenants who do not have parking bays should not have to pay for the parking area or the security gate as part of their service charges.”
“the manager's communication skills could be described as have been sadly lacking”
“The Respondent has simply refused to answer the question despite the fact that this information must be readily available.”
“The suggestion that parts of the work from the same contractor for the same job should be taken separately, is clearly wrong and appears to be a deliberate attempt to evade the consultation process.”
“the whole case has turned on what are quite complicated legal principles…the lease terms are not clear in certain respects. This is unfortunate, to say the least, as it is written in highly complex and legalistic language.”
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.