CHI/45UH/LSC/2021/0094 — service charge decision
In CHI/45UH/LSC/2021/0094, decided 4 April 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 46A and 46B Gratwicke Road, Worthing and found largely for the leaseholder: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 46A and 46B Gratwicke Road, Worthing
Decision date: 4 April 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Moreland Estate Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £960.68 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £400.34 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Administration charges | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs | £1,200 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | — | £312.79 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the REVERSAL Insurance charge (both the £960.68 and £400.34) is not reasonably demanded of Ms Trowers and is not payable.”
“the REVERSAL Insurance charge (both the £960.68 and £400.34) is not reasonably demanded of Ms Trowers and is not payable.”
“none of the demands made for the administration charges for arrears letters is payable by Ms Trowers.”
“the sum payable by each of the Applicants for Professional Fee – Insurance Revaluation Survey is half of the quoted sum of £133.33 plus VAT each and not the £1,200 sought.”
“The most that the Respondent can reasonably charge for Insurance for 2020 onwards is a total of £625.58 to be split equally between Ms Trowers and Mr Cobb.”
“The conduct of the managing agent, Moreland Estate Property Management Limited, and its representatives, has been very poor indeed. This matter could have easily been resolved long ago without the need for the Applicants to engage in fruitless correspondence with the Respondent's representatives and all of the upset that that necessarily entailed, including the Respondent chasing debts which did not validly exist.”
“Not only is there a singular lack of clarity and a refusal to explain, but the Respondent has also failed to comply with paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the lease detailed above.”
“The tenants should not be used as a cash cow by their landlord.”
“Again, the Respondent failed to make its application using the proper procedure. The author of the email is stated to be a solicitor so can be presumed to be aware of the proper procedures”
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.