CHI/45UH/LSC/2022/0007 — service charge decision
In CHI/45UH/LSC/2022/0007, decided 8 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 30 disputed service charge items at 184 Heene Road, Worthing, West Sussex and reached a mixed result: 20 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 184 Heene Road, Worthing, West Sussex
Decision date: 8 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Castor Consulting.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2016) | £600 | £400 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2016) | £160 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Reserve fund contributions (2016) | £3,349 | £3,349 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017) | £600 | £400 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2017) | £80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2017) | £297.12 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2017) | £784 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017) | £1,761 | £1,761 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017) | £530.27 | £530.27 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017) | £5,181.38 | £5,181.38 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017) | £5,865.80 | £5,865.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018) | £570 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Cleaning (2018) | £242.25 | £242.25 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018) | £600 | £400 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2018) | £400 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2018) | £57 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2018) | £80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018) | £6,301.42 | £6,301.42 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £16 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2019) | £600 | £400 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2019) | £80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2019) | £40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2019) | £80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019) | £7,426.24 | £7,426.24 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £90 | £90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | £978.32 | £978.32 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021) | £600 | £400 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2021) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2021) | £80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2021) | £940 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“management fee – see above (£400 maximum for the year)”
“management fee – see above”
“management fee – see above”
“management fee – see above. In addition, this is the liability of flat 1”
“management fee – see above”
“management fee – see above. Also a liability for flat 1”
“They prepared service charge accounts even though they clearly did not know how a sinking fund should be kept, they did not realise that as their contract was for more than one year, the leaseholders must be consulted prior to the appointment and there was no evidence of a signed reconciliation account of service charges being served each year.”
“Some would no doubt suggest that the reason for not employing managing agents was so that Mr. de Silva could earn some money from the property in addition to ground rent as his evidence was that he owned Castor Consulting or at least had an income from it.”
“it seems to this Tribunal that the application has revealed serious deficiencies in the way the Respondent has conducted itself within the period covered by this application.”
“This issue was extremely concerning to the Tribunal.”
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.