Automated Summary
Key Facts
The First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber ruled service charges for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 at 20 and 26 Chindit Close were reasonably incurred except for £54.86 related to a rotary drier. Applicants challenged multiple charges including emergency lighting, gutter cleaning, and drain repairs, but the Tribunal upheld most costs after property inspection and review of documentation.
Issues
The Tribunal assessed the reasonableness of service charges for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, finding all charges reasonable except the £54.86 rotary drier cost which was not a leaseholder responsibility.
Holdings
The Tribunal found that the service charges for the years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 were reasonably incurred at reasonable cost, with the exception of £54.86 for the rotary drier.
Remedies
The Tribunal determined that service charges for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 were reasonably incurred except for the £54.86 rotary drier charge, which was excluded from the service charge as it did not fall under leaseholder responsibilities.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires service charges to be reasonably incurred and the associated services or works to be of a reasonable standard. This principle formed the basis for the Tribunal's determination on the reasonableness of the challenged service charges, including specific items like roof repairs and emergency lighting.
Cited Statute
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Judge Name
- Mr A Hossain
- Mr J R Rimmer
Passage Text
- From its inspection of the building the Tribunal is entirely satisfied that the only safe access for work to the gutters at the rear would be by way of scaffolding. Whatever personal risks might be acceptable to Mr McDonald would be entirely inappropriate for any employer to take with its workmen.
- The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the service charge costs challenged by the Applicants are reasonable with the exception of the rotary drier cost referred to at paragraph 34, above.
- The Applicant's complaint is that this cost has been incurred under a description as an inspection of a building 'NE 4 storeys'. The subject flats are in such a building, it being two storeys high. The descriptor does not in any way suggest that the cost is unreasonable. As the respondent pointed out, it would be unrealistic to have coding descriptors for every precise eventuality.