CHI/45UC/LSC/2024/0018 — service charge decision
In CHI/45UC/LSC/2024/0018, decided 14 March 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 55-57 High Street, Arundel, West Sussex, BN18 9AJ and found largely for the leaseholder: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 55-57 High Street, Arundel, West Sussex, BN18 9AJ
Decision date: 14 March 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Chandler Hawkins Surveyors.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £13,355.08 | £13,555.08 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £1,197 | £480 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Major works (2023) | £51,420 | £51,000 | Reduced | Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Other charges (2023) | £8,448 | £8,448 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal would have allowed the service charges for this item in full if the demands had been valid.”
“The maximum amount of cost which the Tribunal determines to be reasonable for the purpose of service charges is £200.00 plus VAT per notice and therefore £400.00 plus VAT overall, although none of that was payable in response to the invalid demands.”
“The Tribunal determines on evidence received that the cost charged as service charges for the pointing work is, just, reasonable, taking account of the quality of the work and the cost incurred.”
“The Tribunal therefore determined that the Respondent had successfully demonstrated the cost of the scaffolding to be reasonable. The Tribunal would therefore have allowed the cost claimed if the demands had been valid.”
“The Tribunal is disappointed that the Respondent has not organised approval to be considered by the conservation officer, although the evidence indicates would not have achieved approval. The Respondent's failure gives rise to the uncertainty.”
“The strong implication is that Aura prevented the conservation officer from properly considering and dealing with the pointing. That hardly re-assures about the approach taken or the quality of the work produced.”
“The Tribunal was rather surprised that comment made at a time that the Tribunal had not even started considering the point, still less made any decision. It is quite difficult to identify how the Respondent might have known that he wished to pursue an appeal without having any indication of the basis for the Decision reached by the Tribunal, assuming always that Decision to be against the Respondent in the first place.”
“It might be considered somewhat ironic that it is the party which has been represented by lawyers throughout who is the one seeking to persuade the Tribunal not to apply the law.”
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.